From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello. My username is Mark at Alcoa (talk) and I am a member of Alcoa's corporate communications team. I selected this username to promote transparency in my active participation in the Alcoa article within rules, policies and COI guidelines. As a connected contributor, I expect and welcome open and honest dialogue and collaboration around any edits I make, or edits I suggest on Alcoa's Talk page, past or present. For full disclosure, I am not authorized nor do I purport to speak or edit on behalf of the company. The edits and actions herein are mine alone. --Mark at Alcoa"talk" —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC).


This is from Stiglitz's Globalization and its discontents. "...... I worked hard to convince those in the National Economic council that it would be a mistake to support O'Neill's idea, and i made great progress. But in a heated subcabinet meeting, a decision was made to support the creation of an international cartel. People in the council of economic advisers and the department of justice were livid. Ann Bingaman, the assistant attorney general for antitrust, put the cabinet on notice that there might been a violation of the antitrust laws in the presence of the subcabinet. Reformers within Russia were adamantly opposed to the establishment of the cartel and had communicated the feelings directly to me......

While i had managed to convince almost everyone of the dangers of the cartel solution, two voices dominated. The state department, with its close ties to the old-line state ministries, supported the establishment of a cartel. Robert Rubin, at the time the head of National Economic council, played a decisive role, siding with the state. At least, for a while the cartel worked. Prices were raised. The profits of Alcoa and other producers were enhanced. The American consumers- and consumers throughout the world-lost, and indeed..........

Come to think of it, i think we would be screwed if we left these government to save us from M$. Imagine a government, a liberal government for god sake conspiring with a corporation to create a cartel? How would you expect it to break an existing cartel, even if it is within its ability? Really sad world we live in.

Alcoa in Mexico[edit]

Anyone forget about Alcoa's illegal practices with all the sweatshops in Mexico? Refer to this


Strange that there's no mention of the antitrust case against Alcoa. I think it was in the 40's. RJII 15:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - The article reads like a corporate advertisement, note especially the Sustainability and Leadership sections.

Cleaned up[edit]

I cleaned up the article and removed (hopefully) all of the POV info, which looked to be taken from the Alcoa website. Man, that corporate jargon is something, isn't it? Hope everyone is satisfied with the edit. Paul 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added some info about the antitrust case and the monopoly situation . _ Mats

Location Change[edit]

I changed the location to New York and removed the Pittsburgh-based corporations template inclusion, because Pittsburgh is no longer the headquarters. See this Post-Gazette article: Dan128 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to do the second revert in a row but I did individually change this back, NYC is the biggest non-story story I have ever seen (I covered this the day-of go to Go to and click "CONTACT", go to and click "GRANTS" they will all give you Pittsburgh addresses. The Global Center has been in New York dating back decades. There is no news here except some line thousand something on page hundred something that states Belda can't entertain in the 412 like he can in the 212. I fail to see how any of that changes the fact that the company keeps insisting its "corporate center" is still Pittsburgh (again please go to the contact website, grant website etc. etc.). Even the corporate locations map has Pittsburgh as the sole red dot in its global empire. In hindsight it seems the PG is trying to sell more pulp to a population that got weaned on stories of Gulf Oil, Westinghouse, Joy, Marathon, Mesta, CNG, and Integra all getting carried out of town by Wall Streeters--or in Integras case by Brown fans, Alcoa might have a maverick CEO but the corporation for all intents and purposes is Pittsburgh based from every financial and Alcoa site available online. If that documentation changes I see no need to list it as Pittsburgh any longer, but until that documentation changes I feel there is no more proof positive one can aquire. Hholt01 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Question & comment[edit]

Firstly, I want to know if Alcoa changed its articles of incorporation from Pa. to NY or just the physical location of its home office, guess that I could find this out myself but hope that someone knows off the top of his or her head.

Secondly, I think that some mention of the change of mix of consumer products needs to be in the article. At one point in the 1960s, Alcoa had its own brands of foil, Alcoa Wrap and the embossed Diamond Foil (motto: "Diamonds are a girl's best friend"). It slowly ceased to put any real marketing clout into these, first abandonning Alcoa Wrap, the Diamond Foil, and seemingly getting out of the consumer market and leaving it to Reynolds, then only later (in the 1980s, I believe) buying the Reynolds Wrap line from its erstwhile competitor. This is remarkable – almost as if Ford had bought from General Motors the right to call its automobiles "Chevys" while abolishing the Ford marque – and really belongs in the article if someone with sufficient knowledge can write it properly. Rlquall 17:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes - not to mention the numerous other items they made such as Kensington Ware [1] and other dishwares etc. -- 18:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Alcoa is still a PA corporation.

I do believe that the country focus is not very meaningful. Alcoa is organized into Business Segments. Each Segment has Business Units. The business units cross countries. I believe that business units are more meaningful than legal entities, since this is how the business is operated.

Yako987 01:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Yako987 April 26, 2007


There seems to be almost no sourcing of this article. Also, someone keeps deleting the external links page. Please stop. Notmyrealname 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Alcoa in Australia[edit]

This section was deleted which I have just reverted. Please discuss before deleting GrahamP 08:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This section, while not incorrect doesn't tell the whole story. Alcoa operates through its joint venture with Alumina Ltd which is called Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals (AWAC), as it does around the rest of the world. This section should be updated to reflect that. A sepearte article exists for AWAC explaining the ownership and management strucutre as well as it's operations. Hence the section on the Portland operations should be moved to that article as well.
There should only be a simple sentance/paragraph explaining that Alcoa owns 60% AWAC and manages the day to day operations. Strategic direction etc is made in consultation with Alumina Ltd. The other operations in Iceland and South Wales are not owned by Alcoa through AWAC. qwertytam 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks qwertytam - changed to one sentence to reflect the company structure you've outlined GrahamP 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Famous Antitrust Case[edit]

RJII was right, above (and two years ago). This article is terribly incomplete. One of the most renowned antitrust prosecutions in US legal history was fought over Alcoa and we barely mention it in wikipedia? -- 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't log in before writing the above comment as user 167 etc. Anyway, now that I'm properly signed in, here's one way we might discuss the issue.

Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Justice Departmentcharged Alcoa with illegal monopolization, and demanded that the company be dissolved. Trial began on June 1, 1938.

Four years later, the trial judge dismissed the case. The government appealed.

Two more years passed, and in 1944, the Supreme Court announced that it couldn’t assemble a quorum to hear the case so it referred the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The following year, the year the world weary of war at last had a chance at peace, was also appropriately enough the year this litigation came to its end. Learned Hand wrote the opinion for the Second Circuit.

Hand wrote that he could consider only the percentage of the market in “virgin aluminum” for which Alcoa accounted. Alcoa had argued that it was in the position of having to compete with scrap. Even if the scrap was aluminum that Alcoa had manufactured in the first instance, it no longer controlled its marketing. But no, Hand defined the relevant market narrowly in accord with the prosecution’s theory.

Note somewhere that aluminum is an element. How can it be said to be manufactured? Purified out of the bauxite ore in which it is typically found.

Alcoa said that if it was in fact deemed a monopoly, it acquired that position honestly, through outcompeting other companies through greater efficiencies. Hand applied a per se rule here, saying that it doesn’t matter how Alcoa became a monopoly, since its offense was simply to become one. Indeed, Hand seemed to be saying that in some circumstances inefficiency may be a requirement of the law.

Actually, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Hand acknowledge the possibility that a monopoly might just happen, without anyone’s having planned for it. If it did, then there would be no wrong, no liability, and no need to remedy the result. But that acknowledgement is pretty empty, because of course rivals in a market routinely plan to outdo one another, at the least by increasing efficiency and appealing more effectively to actual and potential customers. If one competitor succeeds through such plans to the extent of 90% of the market, that planning can be described given Hand's reasoning as the successful and illegal monopolization of the market.

This leaves the question, what is the proper remedy once a wrongful monopolization is found? Here Hand remanded the matter to the trial court, and the whole narrative comes to an unsatisfactory conclusion – more of a dissipation, really, than a conclusion. In 1947, Alcoa made the argument to the court that there were two effective new entrants into the aluminum market – Reynolds and Kaiser – as a result of demobilization after the war and the government’s divestiture of defense plants. In other words, the problem had solved itself and no judicial action would be required. On this basis, the district court judge ruled against divestiture in 1950, but the court retained jurisdiction over the case for five years, so that it could look over Alcoa’s shoulder and ensure that there was no re-monopolization.


Okay it's a little biased. Still, that's why I'm putting it here on the Talk page. My passions admittedly are engaged in this matter. I believe it was Hayek who said that the problem with idealizing competitions is it leaves you uncomfortable about the fact that somebody wins. Anyone want to try to make the above passage more NPOV? --Christofurio 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


"The following year, the year the world weary of war at last had a chance at peace, was also appropriately enough the year this litigation came to its end."

I edited this out. It's not NPOV, is it? Did the litigation end because the world was weary of war?? Also, the paragraph was poorly written. (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)NotWalter

Alcoa's history -- fact check[edit]

Hi, the recent edit to Alcoa's history cited below is incorrect:

'This discovery, now called the Hall-Héroult process, is still used by Alcoa to produce aluminum. With the help of financial backers, Hall started the Pittsburgh Reduction Company, located in New Kensington, Pennsylvania. '

A more accurate text would be,

'This discovery, now called the Hall-Héroult process, is still the only process used to make aluminum worldwide.

On Thanksgiving day 1888, with the help of financial backers, Hall started the Pittsburgh Reduction Company with an experimental smelting plant on Smallman Street in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In 1891, the company went into full production in New Kensington, Pennsylvania.'

... a good source to check this info is George David Smith's 'From Monopoly to Competition -- the Transformation of Alcoa, 1888-1996'

Since I'm the Alcoa Corporate guy, I'd rather make this wiki-friendly and let this be a discussion point than just barge in and edit. If you guys agree, someone please make an edit along the lines of my suggestions above.

Thanks, Alcoa 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Fixed. Qwerty310 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcoa Smelter Data[edit]

The smelter table in this article needs to be updated. A good reference for this is the web page:

It's updated pretty rigorously.

If that's not acceptable, the official, legal and certifiable public source for this would be Alcoa's 10-K filing. You can find that here:

The 10-K numbers are compiled once a year; the web page is updated somewhat more frequently.


Alcoa 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alcoa in Iceland update[edit]

Here's some data to help with the update that's currently going on in the Iceland section:

Construction of the Fjardaal smelter completed in April 07 and the plant officially opened in June. Here's a reference:

The smelter is staffing up with permanent employees, most of whom are Icelandic. Here's our recruiting page:

The hydro project that powers the Fjardaal smelter is owned by Landsvirkjun, Iceland's national power company. Alcoa is a major customer but not the only one. See

The Bakki smelter currently under study could be the world's first smelter with a geothermal power source. See

(please sign your edits). Anastrophe 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- I'm Alcoa, the official corporate blab. Alcoa 19:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


does any feel that the main paragraphs in relation to the monopoly proceedings are not only incredibly biased (in favor of Alcoa), but written in a manner unbecoming of an encyclopedia? whoever wrote that had some axe to grind.--Teooo (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alcoa Officers[edit]

We noticed some confusion about Alcoa's officers. As of this date (4/08) Alain Belda is Chairman and CEO. Klaus Kleinfeld was made President and Chief Operating Officer in October 2007. Alcoa (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Klaus Kleinfeld[edit]

Mr. Kleinfeld was appointed Chief Executive Officer yesterday. Someone should update the 'Key People' section to reflect that Mr. Belda is now Chairman of the Board and Mr. Kleinfeld is CEO.

Also, an anonymous poster has made an update to the Environmental Record section concerning Klaus that should be reviewed. The date is incorrect -- his appointment took effect on May 8, 2008, not May 20. Also, the poster has apparently misspelled 'July.'

An editorial comment on this entry: it seems inappropriately tacked on to the Environmental Record section. Wouldn't this info be more appropriate in History?

Thanks Alcoa (talk)

Agree. Done Gacole (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Key People -- Please Correct[edit]

Klaus Kleinfeld is CEO, but not Chairman. Alain Belda is still Chairman.


Alcoa (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Outdated info[edit]

There is a lot of outdated information in the article. One of the sections that needs the most work is the environmental section, since Alcoa is now pretty much recognized as an industry leader on environmental matters. If anyone would like to help me update that section, that would be great. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL- split section History to United States v Alcoa[edit]

The discussion of the United States v Alcoa case seems very out of place in this article. This article should be about Alcoa the company, not about legal theory pertaining to a decades-old case in which Alcoa was the defendant. The lawsuit definitely deserves a mention here, since it is important to the the history of the company. But the ramifications for US case law should be in a separate article. (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I think it deserves a see-also at the top, though--I'd bet a significant proportion of visitors are looking for the antitrust case. Bluej100 (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thirded. I agree it is a relevant part of understanding why we have an Alcoa and had an Alcan but is way too long for the company entry Gacole (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, do the split!--EchetusXe (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, the content also needs to be cleaned up. It reads more like a child's report than an informative article. The language comes off as being rather vernacular. For example, the phrase "content. But no, more content..." seems out of place. I started rephrasing some. (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) SiriusAlphaCMa (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. A couple of sentences should in this article should be sufficient, with a hyperlink to the new article. The new article will need more citations.--Work permit (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Work permit (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alcoa's name is 'Alcoa, Inc.'[edit]

re: today's edit that inserted 'Aluminum Company of America' after the company's name and stock ticker. Alcoa no longer uses that name. Legally, the company is Alcoa, Inc.

Thanks Alcoa (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


May I ask for an administrator or bureaucrats help please in removing the two boxes from atop Alcoa's Wikipedia page? The boxes are "This article is written like an advertisement" and "The neutrality of this article is disputed." There was no basis given for putting these boxes on Alcoa's page. The content on Alcoa's page (as evidenced in 'history') almost wholly comes from the unbiased public and various editors. And any edits that have come from Alcoa/company personnel have come from username Mark at Alcoa and are transparent and out in the open for anyone to discuss. Nobody has challenged these. Thanks in advance for your help. Mark at Alcoa (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the {{advert}} and {{npov}} tag since the user who added them did not make it clear what material they found problematic. On a quick read through, I didn't see anything that would warrant these tags (but I did find a copyright issue that I resolved). –xenotalk 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I just added an avert tag and came here to explain why, and found this! I added this tag because the lede and History sections make excessive use of corporate public relations language where a slightly drier, encyclopedic tone is called for. It also makes significant use of words to avoid especially peacock language. For example:

  • Instead of the vague description of Alcoa as a "world leader in the production and management of primary aluminum", we should demonstrate the facts with encyclopedic prose.
  • We brag on behalf of Alcoa that "Alcoa’s products are used worldwide in aircraft, automobiles, commercial transportation, packaging, building and construction, oil and gas, defense, and industrial applications" without explaining what those applications are or why they are scientifically or culturally significant; not in the lede nor elsewhere in the article.
  • The "History" section is a proseline brag sheet of mergers and acquisitions. This material is useful for explaining to shareholders why picking up additional stock might be a good buy - but not to readers who are seeking an encyclopedic overview of the company. Also, a lot of the material here is lacking citations.
  • The "Environmental Record" section is largely critical and does not support the "advert" tag. (I actually worry that there is POV forking taking place within the article, but that is a separate issue)
  • The remainder of the article consists of "Alcoa in..." sections that could be rolled together, but after a quick read seem perfectly encyclopedic and factual.

Overall I don't think there are any fires here, and they should be easy enough for interested editors to correct - but I do think they need correcting. I hope that helps. causa sui (talk) 18:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

April 2013 Updates Hi. My name is Mark at Alcoa and I work in communications at Alcoa. Moments ago, I went in and edited the Alcoa article. I removed a paragraph under "Environment" related to an accusation about "agent orange." The paragraph is/was not only false, but it was also not properly cited. Also, I request an admin's help with two things: (1) We've recently published our 2012 Annual Report which contains updated financial information and other encyclopedic data that should be updated on the Alcoa article. (2) The Alcoa article has a headline at the top about being written like an "advert." I'm fine if people think that way, and the previous person identified some areas that need re-writes. I support that, but in the meantime, I don't think the article is at all written like ad advert and can someone please remove the advert tag? Happy to discuss further. On the financial information, if nobody takes any action after a few days, I'm going to edit the financial information myself, straight from our annual report. Thanks, Mark at Alcoa. Mark at Alcoa —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you just do the financial information now. This page has been on my watchlist for years and nobody touches it. I also removed the advert sign. Automotive articles collect dust. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be best to avoid self-published sources where possible. I've restored the advert tag since several or all of my comments above have still not been addressed. causa sui (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
causa sui, I'm signaling to you that I'm going to begin making changes to this Alcoa page, including removing the advert tag, correcting outdated financial and operational information, and making other edits with proper independent sources. You mentioned above you had concerns, posted questions, and nobody has responded. We have a right to correct information on our page. Any changes I make, folks may feel free to email me or challenge them. Thanks for your interest in Alcoa, and thanks to others for their interest. Mark at Alcoa —Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I also want to call everyone's attention to a recent edit by 2602:306:BD61:D190:9193:DAE:A85:240B, as it appears to be spam and doesn't make sense. Thanks. Mark at Alcoa —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated Financials & Headcount With Data from Alcoa 2013 Form 10-K[edit]

Disclosing to the community that earlier today, 4/23/14, I updated the right-column of the Alcoa page with most recent financial data and employee headcount data, as sourced by Alcoa's 2013 Annual Report and Form-10K. I also, again, removed the Advert tag from atop the Alcoa page. There was no specific example cited when this tag was first added, and, there is still no specific example, despite my reqeusts. As I disclosed in January, I will be suggesting more edits to the Alcoa page by posting them on this Talk page, and I appreciate the community helping to make updates. As always, any edits that have come from Alcoa/company personnel have come from username Mark at Alcoa and are transparent and out in the open for anyone to discuss. Nobody has challenged these. Thanks in advance for your help. Mark at Alcoa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Article copy edit[edit]

Hello there! Over the past month, I've drafted an extensive copy edit of this article in one of my sandboxes. I've gone ahead with the changes to the mainspace version, which I'll briefly summarise as follows:

  1. General updating of facts, including its infobox information.
  2. Clearer compartmentalisation of its history section.
  1. Restucturing of the article according to Alcoa's business segments and history (particularly its operations section, which was severely deficient).
  2. General expansion of contents, adding about 4 thousand words of updated content throughout, particularly regarding its history and operations, as well as about 100 references.
  3. Removal of non-neutral language and improved wording throughout (making the text more fluid for readers).
  4. Removal of the smelters section, which I found out was extremely outdated after doing some research; so in the end I was WP:BOLD and just got rid of it instead of revamping the table (information which by the way can be found in other articles and lists).
  5. Adding appropriate images in adequate positions, as well as an illustrative gallery which is intended to provide informative graphical information about the company's operations.
  6. Tweaking the external links section somewhat.

If you have any comments about my edits, please tell me about them on my talk page. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

All the changes listed above were made by an editor who was community banned for undisclosed paid editing, this included. Therefore they were rolled back by Justlettersandnumbers. Other editors can consider them on their merits, or choose not to. - Brianhe (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alcoa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Environmental records[edit]


It's missing this:

And I suppose every other operation of Alcoa was clean.

Or does that Brazil doesn't count as an environmental nothing? idk, arguments oculd be made, i suppose. But, it too shows where are the company's priorities. It shows that at least, in lack of another point.

Hey, there are good news there too, but you should show all the ball right? --Orangutan45 (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alcoa. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Separate Article for Arconic Split[edit]

Disclosure: I am a future employee of Arconic.

On November 1, 2016 Arconic became a publicly traded entity, breaking off from Alcoa. Now that they are separate companies, would it be appropriate to stop redirecting the Arconic page to Alcoa? If I didn't have a connection to the company, I would consider simply doing the switch, however I don't think that would be appropriate.

A similar situation would be Xerox splitting off Conduent, which already has its own page despite the split happening months after the Alcoa/Arconic split (

Toulmeet (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)