Talk:SAS Institute

message: See first paragraph of the article. I had a look on this list and it seems a couple of other privately held software companies are bigger now (e.g. SunGard and Infor). Tell me if I'm wrong, otherwise maybe it's better to remove that statement. Mårten Berglund (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "one of the world's largest" -- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's largest private software company? 

message: Working on the article from the bottom-up, I'd like to suggest we remove the SAS_Institute#Aircraft section entirely. It is cited to a document from the Federal Aviation Administration and a bizjournals article that briefly mentions SAS has its own hangar at the airport on page 2. As further context, SAS owns a lot of things (their piano is mentioned by USA Today, Inc. magazine and Fortune) and as the article develops we'll have to evaluate which are truly significant to an encyclopedia. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the location of the hanger is hardly an important piece of information, so I've removed it. I'm inclined to agree that the identification of the owned aircraft sounds like someone found the information and decided to include it because they found it. It doesn't sound very surprising or relevant that a company would happen to own some aircraft. However, before removing it, I'd like to see if someone else thinks there is some reason to mention this fact. I'm pinging User:RadioFan, who added the fact, to see if there is some reason why this fact might be of interest to readers. We could probably search a vehicle database to identify the count and make of cars and trucks owned by the company, but it seems unlikely we would choose to add that information.In contrast, the number of trucks owned by a trucking company, or the number of planes owned by an airline is more likely to be relevant and interesting. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is notable and of interest to the reader because it's hard to find a company that doesn't own some number of cars and trucks, it's hard to find a company that owns its own aircraft, especially one that is used to transport employees rather than just executives.--RadioFan (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a case study published by the University of Pennsylvania which has some content about the equality between employees and executives. It focuses on there being no reserved executive parking, dining room, or lavish executive suites, but it could be used to communicate the same message with a better source. CorporateM (Talk) 02:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

text:  User:RadioFan, your response surprises me. My guess is that most of the Fortune 100 have corporate aircraft. I've flown on corporate aircraft of more than one corporation, not as an executive, and I did not get the impression it was especially unusual. I realize my observations are anecdotal, but it does demonstrate that it isn't obvious. I think we need better evidence that this piece of information is worth inclusion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

text: I have some content for an Operations section that lists number of employees, office locations, revenues, R&D spend, ownership, divisions, etc. WP:COI says if anyone contests an edit, it is a controversial edit, so if someone else is willing to take out the Aircraft section, I'd appreciate it. CorporateM (Talk) 02:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text: *I don't see an operations section in the article yet. I don't mind removing the aircraft section (WP:UNDUE, much?) but some of the information should be saved first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the draft operations section I was referring to, which I am vetting now over here.  CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't see a mention of the aircraft in that new section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft section 

message: Currently the article has a long section on SAS' user community, certifications, publishing, etc. that is cited almost exclusively to primary sources. It pains me a bit to trim this section, because I know that SAS Publishing publishes a lot of books and the SAS-L listserv has a lot of history within the SAS user community, but alas, our rules clearly do not allow for such a large section using primary sources. I have offered an alternative here that summarizes the entire section in 4 sentences, using mostly secondary, rather than primary, sources.
A quick note, I am relying on a professionally edited tertiary source (the International Directory of Company Histories) to be a reliable representation of a 1993 article in Business Leader, but I have submitted an inter-library loan request in an effort to obtain an original copy. My hope is these kinds of things won't prevent us from improving the article incrementally even if there is still room for improvement if better sources are found later on, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 08:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put the shorter version into the article. As always in such cases, I have carefully reviewed the changes and read all of the talk page comments, and take full responsibility for the edit I am making under my name. Also, I have no prior connection with this subject with one minor exception; I am a former user of the the Lattice C compiler, but I use GCC now. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some trimming 

message: Working my way up the article, I've put together a proposed replacement for the Software section at User:CorporateM/SAS Institute/Draft using Summary style for the main article at SAS (software). Because there is a main article about the software, the proposed draft would shorten it substantially while reducing the technical jargon that is better-suited for the software page.
Previously an editor noted that a 2011 ranking of software companies by revenue shows SAS at number 33, with some private companies listed above it. A 2012 story in The New York Times confirms what other sources say that SAS is the largest private software company. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy between sources, but NYT seemed more reliable. CorporateM (Talk) 18:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the proposed section: it doesn't quite give an overview of what the product actually does, just that it analyzes systems. The SAS language isn't even touched on. An article on the company should have at least a little bit on both. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Crisco 1492 Giving it a fresh read, I got a similar impression and made some tweaks along these lines. What do you think? CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Much better. Want me to move it over directly? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Crisco 1492 Sure. Also, do you think you could take a look at the Aircraft discussion above? It seems there was some disagreement on whether to remove information about the aircraft they own cited to records by Federal Aviation Administration. I'll keep working my way up and take a look at the next section. CorporateM (Talk) 01:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *I already left a comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

text:  I added it boldly (well, a trivial non-bold edit really, but bold for a COI). CorporateM (Talk) 01:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software summary 

message: I would like to propose an improvement of the History section, which brings us close to the Finish Line for a GAN-ready page after the Lead. As before, I have put together my proposed copy next to the current version of the article at User:CorporateM/SAS_Institute/Draft with some annotations on why changes were made. Unlike the other sections, the proposed would actually expand the History and make it more positive/promotional than it was before (while with most other sections it was the opposite). The proposed is more comprehensive and better-sourced with secondary, rather than primary sources.
If the proposed draft does not set off a few alarm bells for promo and COI, you may not be a good Wikipedian. It's got a lot of stuff about when their employee perks were first introduced, when it started winning awards for it, its record breaking R&D spend, and its contributions to charitable causes. However, if you look at the sources carefully and/or do your own searches, I think you'll find that the proposed is representative of high-quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Something weird is going on. It looks fine on the draft page, but when I cut and paste it into the history section of the article (replacing the present section) and click preview I get multiple "Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name" errors. I don't see anything to fix. Do you get the same result? Guy Macon (Talk) 23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @user:Guy Macon. Should be fixed now.  23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: user:Protonk mentioned during the GA review that we should add a quote from SAS CEO and co-founder James Goodnight regarding his approach to creating a good place to work. I did not incorporate one initially because I felt it would be perceived as COI promotion, but the reviewer is correct that there are a couple very specific quotes from Goodnight that are widely reported in the source material and the article should be representative regardless of how positive the sources are. I suggest we add:
* "CEO James Goodnight said      <---- You can also find nearly identical quotes from Goodnight in Inc. Magazine and CBS
CorporateM (Talk) 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. I don't think the quote is long enough to need it, but either way should be fine.  CorporateM (Talk) 23:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

text: So  will get us a nicer looking blockquote (no border and gray box), but italicizes the whole thing, making it look like Goodnight wrote Kochan and Schmalensee.  lets us avoid that, but makes an ugly box. Hmph. I'm sure there's a way to marry the two but I don't want to make yet another quote template. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Goodnight Quotes 

message: I'm using this space to store new source material as I see it. Feel free to add it to the article or wait for me to put together a Request Edit every 6-12 months or so. CorporateM (Talk) 00:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage 

message: It's been about 9 months or so since I brought the SAS Institute and SAS (software) pages up to GA. I wanted to suggest a couple small additions/updates to keep them up to date.
* Add to history section: The company's cloud-based products grew in revenues by 35 percent in 2014 and the construction of Building Q was completed late that year to house its corresponding operations.
* Add to the SAS (software) article under History: "The company introduced 27 data management products from October 2013 to October 2014 and updates to 160 others. At the 2015 SAS Global Forum, it announced several new products that were specialized for different industries, as well as new training software.
CorporateM (Talk) 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI - I've also trimmed the unsourced material you identified with a detailed edit-summary. I don't see it in the GA reviewed version, so I think someone else must have added it. CorporateM (Talk) 00:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Request edit

message: I'm a little concerned that this edit is unsourced and overly detailed. Were there any press articles, books or other credible, independent sources that discuss the SAS Analytics U initiative? If there are good sources for it, I would suggest something more concise like "In March 2014, SAS launched SAS Analytics U, which provides free software to teachers and students." CorporateM (Talk) 19:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I'll some some information on SAS and JMP user groups to discuss here in TALK to improve the Article herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The User Group section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on SAS Institute. 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/20100721005040/http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/17/585343/sas-acquisition-to-help-spies.html to http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/17/585343/sas-acquisition-to-help-spies.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://idcdocserv.com/241689e_sas
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See this 2019 newspaper article  -- "Five fraud victims are suing the computer system developer, SAS Analytics, and..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be something about the apparent Michigan scandal 

message: I came across a reference to Rothschild Concordia SAS, an investment management firm:
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/0566889D:FP
and this ties to this release by SAS Institute that shows a link but doesn't mention ownership:
https://www.sas.com/en_us/news/press-releases/2023/may/concordia-event-at-sas.html
So is there an ownership connection not mentioned in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danchall (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: ownership?