Talk:Fluor Corporation

Untitled

No mention of Fluor's nuclear waste operation. This entry reads like a press release ~~ memetank

Article Expansion

Additional facts of their operation citing the 5 major groups of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinkbeforeyoupost (talk • contribs) 22:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Klein discusses Fluor extensively in her book The Shock Doctrine, in relation to no-bid contracts and with reconstructive efforts, specifically with the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. Klein's stance is critical but well-developed in one of her more popular works, and should be mentioned in the article.

Bias in article

It's pretty obvious that this article is being edited by someone who represents Fluor and is trying to promote the company. This has been reverted several times by various users but it invariably returns again and again. This is not the place for corporate marketing, so cut it out! SirLamer 22:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This piece doesn't bother to mention there is no mention of the very large presence that Fluor has in Iraq. Is that not significant or are they trying to hid it?

23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)~

Draft

I am affiliated with Fluor Corp. and have offered a draft of a substantially improved version of the article at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard here for consideration/review/feedback by impartial editors. I wanted to also post here on the Talk page in case there are editors with this page on their watchlist that want to discuss the new material. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

From my edit summary at article page: "Sub in CorporateM draft as discussed at this talk page, COI noticeboard and at article draft. Please revert me if you do not agree" North8000 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For general reference and archival purposes, I've copy/pasted the discussion about the re-write of the article that took place in my user-space below. There are also some comments on the COIN board that will get archived there eventually. BTW - I noticed when user:Ukexpat updated the article to C-class that it is marked as "low importance" in Wikiproject Companies, which I thought was unusual for a Fortune 110 company to be of low importance, though I do not know what criterion are used for evaluating it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing this article

Just a note that I am reading this over, and comparing it to what is now at Fluor Corporation. I'll give more detailed feedback soon(-ish). My first quick thought is that this looks much, much better than what is live. I'm afraid I won't be much help in determining whether or not it will be good enough for GA but I can at least lend my support as an unbiased editor without a COI. -- Atama頭 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know! I had just pinged user:North8000 not knowing if anyone was actively taking a look. It's a large body of work, so I figured it would take some time to give it a lookover. Most editors are just like me and never get to most things we intend to do. CorporateM (Talk) 22:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Looks like a big improvement. Are you aware of anything significant that has been removed? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Below is the material that didn't make it into my draft, because it wasn't sourced well-enough. For the Notable projects section, I mostly looked for jobs included in profiles that summarize their most important jobs, with some exceptions where the item was covered in a lot of media. However it wasn't always clear which projects to include. I was really on the fence with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge project for example. building its first hydrocracker plant in 1968 for the American Oil Co. in Texas City (primary source) helped established its credentials in the oil and gas industry (editorializing) In 1932 it was awarded its first major refinery contract for Shell Oil at Wood River, Illinois. (primary source) building its first hydrocracker plant in 1968 for the American Oil Co. in Texas City (primary source) In 1995 Fluor acquired ADP, a design and project management business; in 1996 it acquired Marshall Contractors.[8] (press release source) In 2000 it spun off its coal operations to Massey Energy Corp..[7] (primary source) The corporation was sued because of "numerous design and construction failure" on a project in north Chile in 2002.[9] (primary source) In 2009, Fluor entered the solar industry when it was contracted to design a 46 MW solar thermal plant in a partnership with California firm ESolar.[10] (Other projects were more "notable") Eastern span replacement of the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge: completed in in 2013[21][22] (As discussed I was really on the fence, but needed to be selective about which projects are notable enough to include) U.S. Army's LOGCAP program & Al Zour Refinery (unsourced) However, in March 2009, the Kuwaiti government informed Fluor to halt construction because reduced oil prices had made the project financially unfeasible. The announcement did not come entirely as a surprise because former Kuwaiti Prime Minister Nasser Mohammed Al-Ahmed Al-Sabah had been mentioning cancellation.[24] Some investment analysts predicted the project's cancellation as early as December 2008.[25] Fluor announced that it would remove $2.1 billion, the remaining value of the contract, from its books.[23] (broken link and one of those guest-post type Forbes things. There is one legitimate source in Bloomberg but again having to be selective about which projects are notable enough to include.) Fluor has also been ranked No. 1 in Engineering News-Record (ENR) magazine's 2012 list of Top 100 Design-Build Firms and No. 2 on its Top 400 Contractors list.[26] Fluor was selected one of the "Global Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE)" for the sixth consecutive year in 2011 and named one of America's Safest Companies by EHS Today magazine in 2011. (unsourced and/or promotional as we tend to avoid rankings, etc.) Fluor has also been named one of the World's Most Ethical Companies by Ethisphere magazine for six consecutive years, 2007-2012. (unsourced and we prefer to avoid rankings) CorporateM (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I didn't mean to make you do all of that work; that's a more thorough answer than I hoped for. North8000 (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) From my edit summary at article page: "Sub in CorporateM draft as discussed at this talk page, COI noticeboard and at article draft. Please revert me if you do not agree" North8000 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I just fixed the logo image, since trademarked images can't be posted in user-space. I just wanted to make sure if Atama had any feedback? I was a bit rude in pinging you not knowing that he/she was actively reviewing. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC) You know me....bull in a china shop, but with an invitation to revert me. It sounded like Atama was done, but if not, please revert me or mention it and I'll revert myself. I was thinking about asking you what you would think about putting the logo back in somewhere, but you were way ahead of me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

See also

Suggest adding a "See also" section with a link to the Wikipedia page on NuScale Power. It is mentioned in this page that Fluor has a majority interest in it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

Article promoted - 13 July 2014.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fluor Corporation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: TLSuda (talk · contribs) 19:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Greetings! I know you've waited a few months for a review, but I have good news! I'm stuck in a tin can for 5 hours tomorrow late night UTC, so I'm going to use that time wisely to review this article. I expect to have the review posted in the early morning hours UTC the following day. (Approximately less than 36 hours from this post.) I look forward to reading and reviewing this article. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks User:TLSuda! One thing I will point out about this article is that as a construction company (as oppose to tech, internet or something more modern) it is not a buzzy topic that gets as much media coverage as you would expect for a Fortune 500 company, so some of the sources are a little weak or non-traditional (for example, I found a government report that summarized their most significant government contracts). I think I have used good judgement in these cases, but I'll see what you think in 36 hours! CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Hey @CorporateM: sorry about the extreme delay. Internet has been spotty where I've been staying, so I've only been posting responses as I can. Here's my review. Take your time in responding if you need it. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Initial review GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Is it reasonably well written? A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Is it factually accurate and verifiable? A. Has an appropriate reference section: B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: C. No original research: Is it broad in its coverage? A. Major aspects: B. Focused: Is it neutral? Fair representation without bias: Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Overall: Pass or Fail: Almost there, just a few small things to consider. See prose review below. TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Prose review Lead "global services" does not need quotes around it.  Done It's actually the name of the division, so I put it in title-caps, etc., which should do the trick CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Early history "President" should be lowercase when referring to the position and not using it as a title. IE President Obama vs Obama is president.  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "Business declined rapidly during the Great Depression and picked up again during World War II" change "and" to "yet", it flows better  Done I used "but" does that work? CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Spell out United States or write it as U.S. in the next sentence.  Done I just want to verify that the president in 1952's name was Si Fluor and that it isn't typo.  Done The source says "John Simon "Si" Fluor Jr." which is what I have now placed in the text. CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Diversification and restructuring Add a comma after "In 1972..."  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Same for US as above.  Done "Fluor's international business rebounded." When? What business? I assume sometime after 1987, but it is unclear.  Done Changed to "revenues" to make it more clear. CorporateM (Talk) 15:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Recent history Add a comma after "In the 1990s..."  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Organization Fix US  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Link CEO to Chief executive officer, as this isn't always the meaning of the acronym  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC) "anticorruption" should be "anti-corruption"  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Notable objects US again x 3  Done CorporateM (Talk) 15:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Side question Not relevant to the GA discussion, but: Any reason you didn't use more of the parameters of the infobox? Like founder= former_name= area_served= divisions= ? TLSuda (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)  Done Good question. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC) And with all of your additional work, I'm very happy to promote this article! Good work @CorporateM:! I'm glad that your work is so high quality and that your COI does not prevent you from being neutral as possible. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit

The current article states: "According to the company website, Fluor has four primary business groups....". The website has been updated to reflect that the company is now organized into six segments. That being said, I think breaking down all six segments in bullets as is done now for four segments is too much. As such, I suggest the following more concise replacement for that sentence and all four bullets.

According to Fluor's 2013 annual report, 57 percent of its work backlog is from the oil and gas industry. According to the company's website, Fluor's work includes designing and building power plants, petrochemical factories, mining facilities, roads and bridges, government buildings, and manufacturing facilities. The company also performs nuclear cleanup and other services.

I can update the annual report reference each year as a non-controversial edit with the latest numbers. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Small update

Suggest adding construction of the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson river to the "Notable Projects" section.

• "In December 2012, Fluor was awarded a $3.14 billion contract to build the Tappan Zee Bridge over the Hudson River."

The Notable Projects section is just a concise summary of the most significant works, but as a $3 billion project covered in national media like Bloomberg, this seemed like it was significant enough to mention.

Also, the current Lede says "in four areas: energy and chemicals, industrial and infrastructure, government and Fluor Global Services such as staffing and equipment rentals." I suggest we replace this with the industries mentioned in Fluor's annual report: oil & gas, industrial & infrastructure, government and power. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 14:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent acquisition

Requesting Fluor's recent acquisition be added. Some potential text is below, cited to Reuters:

"Fluor acquired an engineering and construction firm based in the Netherlands called Stork for $755 million in March 2016. Stork mostly modifies and maintains large power plants."

David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed acquisition was already in the article, along with one of the suggested references. I edited the article to indicate that the acquisition has been closed, identify the main business, the amount involved in the acquisition and add the other reference.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fluor Corporation. 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/20121017132920/https://www.denix.osd.mil/cr/upload/FINAL_Report_A-Guide-to-Architecture-Engineering-Firms_Cold-War-Era_09-434.pdf to http://www.denix.osd.mil/cr/upload/FINAL_Report_A-Guide-to-Architecture-Engineering-Firms_Cold-War-Era_09-434.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit

Someone added the following text to the bottom of the article

Fluor recently took over as the primary contractor at Plant Vogtle (Bechtel took over vogtle in August 2017), Units 3 & 4, and V.C. Summer (v.c summer got shut down. all work stopped in August 2017), Units 2 & 3. CB&I previously had the contract.

The content is unsourced and sounds likely to be written from personal knowledge. There are some sources about Fluor's work with Vogtle, but none that indicate it was a major historical milestone that would amount to something more than listing every project Fluor works on. As I have a COI, I would like to request another editor trim the content.

Pinging @TLSuda: who did the GA review back in 2014. CorporateM (Talk) 14:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply 05-MAR-2018

The passage you mention as being problematic is actually 2 seperately added claim statements. The first, most recent part of the claim was added in August of last year. The second part predates August of 2017. My questions:

1. Which part of this two-part claim statement are you disputing?
2. Where are the references for either of these claims?

In light of these discrepancies it may be necessary to revoke the GA status and begin anew with a more lengthy, and thoroughly complete GA review. Please advise.
Regards, Spintendo      19:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The unsourced addition was made in October 2016, and updated later. I've removed it pending someone finding sourcing that indicates it merits inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I am going to second (or third as it were) that removal, Flour is a massive EPCM company, and there is no conceivable reason we should be including anecdotal information about specific contracts, of which they probably have thousands on the books at the moment. The subject of the GA re-review is another question. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel International

The article barely mentions Daniel International and none of it's key people. This is the biggest weakness in the whole Wiki concept. History literally "disappears before our eyes"!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1300:602D:D07B:EA07:4790:9EBC (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

New CEO

The end of the "Recent history" section says:

On May 2, 2019, Fluor's stocks fell by more than 20 percent following both the abrupt departure of David Seaton as CEO and an unexpected first-quarter loss.The loss comes a month after the company was not chosen as a repeat contractor for a LOGCAP military construction and logistics support contract in Afghanistan. Followin Seaton's departure, Fluor's board named former CEO Alan Boeckmann as executive chairman.

Wikipedia doesn't normally include stock-value updates or use editorialized language like "abrupt departure" and "unexpected .... loss." The content cites this source regarding losing a major client, but the same citation also mentions a major client win that wasn't included. I wanted to suggest more neutral content as follows:

"In May 2019, David Seaton stepped down as CEO and was replaced by Carlos Hernandez."

Pinging @Loopylu101: who made some of these edits recently, as well as @North8000: and @Guy Macon: who have worked on this page in the past given my disclosed conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with CorporateM's reasoning. I just made the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

A couple accounts (@Tevincoleman26: and @Culturehound:) recently added some content that is cited exclusively to Fluor press releases. These two accounts made similar edits and edit-summaries within 10 minutes of each other. I want to request the edits be reverted on account of being cited to press releases (and want to clarify these are not Fluor edits). As previously disclosed, I work for Fluor as their Wikipedia point-person and have a disclosed conflict of interest. Pinging @Guy Macon: and @North8000:, who have previously participated here. CorporateM (Talk) 15:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I did it. For that reason and others. North8000 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of the intro

Isn't this overly selective in what is highlighted? It goes from specific to vague.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article. It's hard to say what one particular paragraph of the lead should say, but IMO it looks like a good summary of some higher level/ broader stuff. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I get the concept, it's just the intro is very selective on what they highlight and not just here. High level should be kept to what they do, picking out certian time frame and events is now leading the reader based on cherry picked events.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but I did give my opinion in the previous post and to me those look like pretty broad areas. I'm also not a main editor of this article. I'm just here trying to help a little which started with reviewing/doing doing edits for the potential-COI editor.North8000 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks for answering my question. I had to look up COI. Does that go both ways? Seems smearing a company would be just as advantageous. Or is it positive is bad, negative news is good?--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I was using "COI" in a narrower Wikipedia sense, and within that, the clear cut case where an editor is paid by the topic of the article to work on the article, and, within that the smaller group which is paid editors doing everything 100% properly and carefully which was the case with editor CorporateM here. And a part of that is that they generally work though somebody like me rather than editing the article directly.

Articles are supposed to be neutrally written. WP:NPOV is the main policy that strives to make that happen. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that information, very helpful.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Fluor page

Hello, On the Fluor Corporation page info box on the right, the company headquarters location says "Grapevine" Texas. We are actually located in "Irving" Texas as stated in the first sentence of the article. Can this be corrected? Thank you

Fixed. Paul W (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect information on Page - No relation to Fluoride

Hi, On line 2 of the first paragraph and in the summary box under Industry, it has been listed that Fluor is connected to the Fluoride industry. We actually have no connection to the Fluoride industry; Fluor is an Engineering, Procurement and Construction company. Can these changes be corrected? If you need more information, feel free to contact me. Thanks MrKevinGoddard (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Paul W (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)