Talk:SAS Institute

World's largest private software company?

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)

I've changed it to "one of the world's largest" -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good article

Hi All. I am the original author of a majority of the article's content, which I wrote about three years ago. It needs a lot of work, in particular to reduce its reliance on primary sources and an excessive level of detail. Like I do with most articles where I have a COI, I'd like to correct my prior in-adequacies and prep the article for Good Article status. I find this is a good way to get the article vetted and re-assure the community that I'm doing good work. With that in mind, I've started working on another draft at User:CorporateM/SAS Institute and I welcome input, suggestions, etc..

There is a separate article on the company's software at SAS (software), which was just recently awarded the GA rank. The company itself is primarily notable due to its reputation as a good place to work, showing that greed isn't always the best way to run a business, etc. so I think that will make it especially challenging to remain neutral when there are a lot of fluffy anecdotes. Also for a GA reviewer to assess whether it is representative of the sources or if it is a COI thing will also be challenging. CorporateM (Talk) 22:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that when a major revision of an already lengthy article is planned, it's a good idea to create a separate, article-long draft replacement. That forces interested editors to commit a lot of time, comparing the original to the draft.

I think what works better is to

(a) reorganize the existing article, as needed, into the proposed new structure. That may lead to some very short subsections [for totally new subsections, it's probably best to omit the new heading altogether], but that's okay. And it's not good to delete redundant material, or material you propose to remove at this point; make this into just a reordering of text. [This isn't particularly controversial, so I don't think a draft is needed; I think you can edit directly, even with COI, since you're not adding or removing material.] You can do this in several chunks, if that is easier.

(b) propose (post drafts) for new article subsections, one by one, on this talk page, followed by doing this for expanded article subsections. (I suggest a new section on this talk page for each major revision, whether that's one new article subsection or a group of them that are close toether.) Expanding short article sections can be handled similarly. The goal of this phase is give other editors smaller, more manageable things to review.

(c) to wrap up, propose final drafts of each section of the article, which would then just be changes to the less-modified subsections of the article.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Will do! CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - Looks like there is a rough consensus for removing the section. However, Corporate, I think a mention of the total of the company's assets (i.e. x planes, y offices, etc) may be worth having. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

• I don't see a mention of the aircraft in that new section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've removed the bit about aircraft. We can speculate as to how unique it is that a large company owns rather than leases aircraft but I don't think that speculation is sufficient to retain the claim with just a primary source (the FAA registration). Protonk (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some trimming

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)

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[1] now. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Software summary

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)

• I'd stick with the NYT since it is a) more recent and b) a more reliable source. As for the main point of your post, let me take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

@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)

• Much better. Want me to move it over directly? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@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)

• I already left a comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I found this in a Computerworld article that may help explain what the software is: SAS products capture, store, manipulate, analyze and present information. SAS started with statistical tools, but it's now heavily into data warehousing, data mining and executive information systems. CorporateM (Talk) 03:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Useful indeed... integrate it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

FYI, here is another description in Fast Company that I think has slightly less jargon: "SAS writes software that makes it possible to gather and understand data, to sift through mountains of information in order to find patterns and meaning." CorporateM (Talk) 06:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Working up

The "Corporate" section currently begins with a couple paragraphs on the company's financials, ownership, etc. and relies heavily on primary sources. I would like to offer a replacement that is more complete and relies more heavily on secondary sources. Both the current and proposed versions of this section are at User:CorporateM/SAS Institute/Draft for easy comparison. A couple notes:

• I did use a primary source (the company fact-sheet) for employee counts, as the secondary source from Organizational Dynamics from 2009 was very outdated.
• I also did some slight synth to say that SAS' R&D spending is 20-30%, using one source that says 20 and another that says 30 (in 2013 it was 25). Sources vary since the exact ratio changes each year (in 1993 it was 34%, which is why it says "about" since it has gone beyond that range)
• I added a short sentence about the airplanes they own cited to the FAA as a replacement for the Aircraft section per the discussion above.

CorporateM (Talk) 04:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Workplace

Following user:John Broughton's advice, I have continued to restructure the article so that it's easy to compare the current content to proposed revisions. Additionally, at the same draft space as before I have prepared both a proposed re-write of the Work Environment section and an annotated version of the current article-text, which explains some of the most significant changes.

A few notes:

• User:Smartse felt the Software Business Online article was fishy and when I looked into it, it turned out to be written by a guest contributor, so I removed it throughout the proposed version as non-reliable.
• Some of the current article text I would like to move to a History section later on
• The proposed version trims twelve paragraphs into six, by trimming primary sources, unsourced content, and unneeded commentary such as "as one employee put it, “Here, I know everything I do has an impact on the final product..." It's nice and tight, though I feel an FA version might be slightly longer.
• A lot of this will sound promotional or trivial unless you evaluate the sources. Being a good place to work is their primary claim to notability (besides the software which has a separate page). For example, there are a large number of press articles that talk about the free M&Ms, which sounds like trivia, but the sources were so overwhelming, I don't think the article would be complete without it.
• I did an extensive amount of fact-checking, copyediting, etc.

Please let me know if there is any way I can make it easier to compare the two versions and confirm the proposed is an improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 08:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the change with a couple of minor wording changes; let me know if you think the as-proposed wording was better and we can discuss. As always, I take full responsibility for any edits I make.no matter who suggests them.

A note to anyone reviewing this; normally, I keep a sharp eye out in these situations so make sure that the COI editor doesn't (intentionally or unconsciously) add a positive bias. In this particular case, I looked at the citations carefully and did a web search for anything negative that we might be missing, and my conclusion was that SAS really does seem to be notable for being a good place to work, and we should not hide that fact any more than we would hide some notable worker-mistreatment scandal if there was one. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Guy Macon! I noticed you merged the Benefits section, but not the Structure and culture section. I didn't know if you haven't gotten to it yet, if it was by mistake, or if you felt the prior version was better than the proposed, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Helpful hint: it works better if you click on the save page button when you are done instead of just previewing and leaving the tab open. :)

Guy Macon Haha, thanks. One last thing. The very beginning of the Workplace section that is not in a sub-section (just above Benefits) is also unchanged. And as before I didn't know if it was a mistake or if you preferred the prior version. The proposed is sort of in a Lead style, where it summarizes why their workplace culture is notable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Got it, I hope. [Insert humorous comment here.] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

History section

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)

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)

@user:Guy Macon. Should be fixed now. 23:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

The last "section" I'd like to take a shot at is the Lead, which I've written in a single paragraph below. Compared to the current Lead, it reduces some repetition on how ubiquitous the software is and adds a summary of the company's work environment, which is its primary claim to notability. Should be ready for a GAN after this! Pinging @user:Guy Macon, who has been working on the article with me for a while now. CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Lead
SAS Institute is a developer of enterprise analytics software headquartered in Cary, North Carolina. Its software is used by most Fortune 500 companies to manage, present and analyze data that can assist in making decisions. SAS Institute was founded in North Carolina State University and incorporated as a private corporation in 1976. It grew quickly and as of 2013 employs 5,200 employees. SAS is known for being a good place to work. Employees are given extensive medical benefits, life counseling services and are granted a high degree of autonomy.

As I said before, I looked into it and they really are noted for being a good place to work, but my personal preference is to not put things like "20-30 percent of its revenues on research and development" or "helps employees find a college for their children" in the lead. It starts looking like a corporate brochure. Instead, I would like someone unfamiliar with enterprise analytics software to be able to figure out what the company and the software does (possibly by following a link), and I am pretty sure that a GA review will say pretty much the same thing.

I have been having health issues and may not be able to respond for a few days -- or I may be stuck in front of my computer with plenty of time. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I re-wrote the draft above a bit just now to focus more on the software. CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Personally I think two paragraph would give you space to give a better overview of the company. Several sections are not represented in the lede, which goes against WP:LEDE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done (kind of) The problem with Guy's and Crisco's comments is that they conflict directly with each other. If we follow WP:LEAD by representing each section and each sub-section in the Lead, it will have a lot of content about being a good place to work. I tried to wiggle it around to something in-between that tries to cover all the topics covered in the article, without going into too much detail. As always, I encourage other editors to edit boldly however they please. CorporateM (Talk) 16:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SAS Institute/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 14:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I figured I'd tackle this nomination as it was listed as a COI nom and who better to counteract that than an R user! :) This is a tough article to review, as we want to be careful about tone and neutrality but coverage of SAS is overwhelmingly positive. In general I don't feel tone is a serious problem with this article, although the history section reads as a chronologically ordered list of the awesome things SAS has done (many of which are repeated later in the Workplace section). I've found a few issues with sources (detailed below) and I have some comments about organization and structure but other than that this is a good effort and I don't think much work will be needed to promote the article.

Thanks so much! Yah, this will be the most positive GA article I have created, with Noodles & Company coming in as a close second, due to SAS' primary claim to notability being their status as a good corporate citizen. I've answered most of the easy ones below, but I'd like to cull the article myself top-down for source formatting, copyediting, etc. as I need to re-familiarize myself with the sources to better respond to the rest and fix a lot of minor citation formatting issues. CorporateM (Talk) 22:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: Once the world programming bit is done the only outstanding issue is a discussion of the IPO. As I said below I'm willing to write up some suggested verbiage to see if it works for you, but I won't be able to do that until this evening. Once that is done or we agree otherwise on what's in the article I'm happy to pass this. Good work! Protonk (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout

completed

The lede should be updated to better summarize the contents of the article. It doesn't need to be exhaustive, but should cover at least when it was founded and some other pertinent details from the history (as they make up the bulk of the article)  Done Protonk (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I think pronunciation hints normally go earlier in the lede, e.g. "SAS Institute Inc (or SAS, pronounced "sass")" might work. At the very least "SAS" should be bolded and noted as an alternate name for the company since it is relatively common (and we'll use it later in the article)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS has been ranked in Fortune's annual best places to work..." in -> among  Not done I think the current is correct actually. The noun of this sentence as-written is "the rankings" which SAS was "in" as oppose to "among". If the sentence were written differently "among" would be correct. CorporateM (Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) How about "SAS has been ranked among Fortune's "Best Companies to Work For" each year since the survey's inception in 1997" Avoids saying it's "ranked in the rankings" and uses Fortune's name for it. I'm on the fence about award/survey, since it appears the ranking is based on a survey and I'm not sure "award" is the most correct term. Thoughts on that? Tweaks? Protonk (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS has been identified as a "Best Company to Work For" in Fortune's annual rankings each year since the list's inception in 1997"? CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Do it to it. :) Protonk (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS introduced its first reseller program intended to expand implementations..." Why not just say "sales"?  DoneCorporateM (Talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS spokespeople say its employee benefits are provided for business, not altruistic, reasons." You know what, plop a blockquote from Goodnight about this practice before this paragraph starts (if you want :) ). He's quoted widely--and consistently--enough among sources covering the perks that one might be worthwhile. This is true; there are two quotes from Goodnight that are widely reported in the sources. One is about how 90% of his company's assets drive out the gate every day at 6 and he needs them to come back the next day, and there's another about this triangle of employees/customers/investors and how making employees makes all three happy (or something like that). Let me find one and use a Request Edit, as it is so rare that such a promotional quote is warranted, it would raise the appearance of COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I think his views on the material reasons for wanting to pamper employees are pretty central to the coverage the company gets. I would like to see what the other folks watching this page say, but I think it's valuable. Protonk (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, also, CorporateM please ping me when you add that requested edit template because I'd like to leave a comment on the talk page proper. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "...cost the company $4.5 million USD, but save it an additional $4.5 million USD..." "additional" seems odd here. What savings is it being added to?  Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "A professor from Stanford estimated..." is this Jeffrey Pfeffer (named below in the Structure and culture section)?  Done Yes, I had to find a different source with his full name. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC) We don't need SAS (software) in the see also section as we link it multiple times in the article.  Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Consider wikilinking to concepts such as flat organization. In general the wikilinks in the article are to other businesses or publications. There's nothing wrong with that and the article isn't egregiously over or underlinked, but building the web is valuable.  Done I found a few linking opportunities. I prefer to avoid over-linking though. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

content

completed

Done is that better? CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Yes. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Many of the employee perks the company later became known for, such as fresh fruit, reasonable work hours..." this feels a little booster-ish  Done Better? I removed "later became known for" which I don't think is in the source anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Yes. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "In the 1970s, the company established its first marketing department..." I presume we're avoiding specificity because the source does so, but this seems like it should be constrained between 1976 and 1979. How about "late 1970s"? CorporateM (Talk) 22:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Works for me. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC) How many founders did SAS have? which sold their interests? Four founders, two remain. I do remember seeing somewhere that one of them sold out for $200k or so early on. I'll see what I can find. CorporateM (Talk) 00:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Currently we have "and some of the founders sold their interest in the company". I suggest we move this to the second paragraph and say "Barr and Helwig later sold their interests in the company" to make it more clear? The source does not say the exact year that Helwig sold. CorporateM (Talk) 00:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC) That's better and resolves my followup question about the implicit connection between getting a marketing department and having founders leave. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Done No connection between the marketing department and some of the founders selling their shares. CorporateM (Talk) 02:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) the first paragraph in the history section is a bit confusing to parse. What, exactly was the original project at NC state? When was the project started? The third sentence jumps in "By 1976 the software had 100 customers" What software?  Done better? CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Yes. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I know this was raised on the talk page, but I'm not sure it's important to mention that SAS owns aircraft. Is there a secondary source which takes note of this?  Not done Because there is at least one editor that disagrees with removing it, it is a "controversial edit" and I cannot remove myself per WP:COI. Please remove it if you are comfortable doing so. On the other hand, I'm not sure I should do another Request Edit on the same topic, after the original didn't go my way, which would seem like gaming (but really, yah, it should be taken out). CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'll remove it with a note. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC) If it's replaced that shouldn't impact the review, so either way this is  Done} Protonk (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Why not just note that it had been on Inc Magazine's list of fast growing companies for six years between 1979 and 1985?  Done CorporateM (Talk) 03:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Its revenues come relatively evenly from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas." This was true in 2010. Is it true now? The latest stats appear to be: 11.9 percent Asia-Pacific, 41.4 percent Europe, Middle East and Africa America and 46.7 percent Americas. Should we replace it with a more up-to-date primary source? Press release = eww, but it might be ok for revenues. CorporateM (Talk) 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC) My recommendation is to move from the general to the specific. I'd keep the source noting broad distribution and then make a follow on sentence noting exact distribution in 2014. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Does the bit about Curriculum Pathways belong in the corporate culture? It's in a paragraph which discusses employee volunteering and I think could be better placed elsewhere. The two sentences are in the same paragraph because they are both about charity. Donating software and donating employee time. CorporateM (Talk) 03:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Employees are encouraged to work reasonable hours..." We have a source that notes most of the employees work ~35 hours a week and that programmer style binge sessions are discouraged. I don't have a problem noting the encouragement but I feel we can give a little more context to the claim by separating this from the fitness center clause and noting the observed work hours.  Done CorporateM (Talk) 04:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Keep an eye out for close paraphrasing of the cnn article. I don't see phrases lifted but I do see claims made in quick succession from the same place (e.g. stay-at-home mom -> fitness center, both appear in the same paragraph in the same order from the same source). This one? CorporateM (Talk) 00:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Yes. I thought about refactoring this point because I don't think close paraphrasing is a problem, but it did seem worth offering a warning. Feel free to treat this as informational. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Ok, the URL seems to going on and off. As soon as it's working again I'll take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Not done Argh. The link was working for a moment, but is down again. The article is not available through my library's online archives. If it's not something that's going to prevent it from hitting GA, I think we just let this one go. I have no method of getting to the source material unless the website goes back up. CorporateM (Talk) 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC) What is the SAS certification program and why is it important to the history of the company? There is something like 35,000 or so certifications and numerous books published to prepare candidates for certification. It's not a very exciting topic that I would expect to get media coverage, but I would think any enterprise software page should have a sentence or two, the same way we include revenues and offices by de-facto. Let me see if I can find better/more sources. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I think you resolved this by moving it out of the history section (which I agree with).  Done Protonk (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) What information do we have on SAS publishing beyond a local newspaper in 2000? Does it still exist? What kind of books do they publish? Yup, still in operation and doing the same type of thing (publishing SAS-related books/documentation). I added another source. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Looks good. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) The User community section is largely about SAS certification and SAS publishing. I think one may think the latter is germane because it publishes books by SAS users except it's likely trivially true that a book on SAS will be written by a SAS user. :) According to the 20-page Stanford case study I'm reading from Jeff Pfeffer, the publishing of books written by users is unique: "In addition to publishing and selling its own users’ manuals and guides, the company publishes books on using SAS written by users who aren’t SAS Institute employees, an approach to being a publisher that is relatively unique in the software industry." CorporateM (Talk) 20:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I think that may be a function of owning an imprint, as (just looking at some other statistical software vendors) Maple & the R foundation don't publish the books about their language but the authors are necessarily users. State does appear to publish books in much the same manner as SAS. However if you're working from the case study I'm ok with sourcing that claim to Pfeffer (though I'm not sure it's as unique as he claims). Protonk (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Sometimes with really positive or negative articles, the sources are written by enthusiasts or critics that can get carried away. I think it is best to include it, but without adding the commentary about how unique it is, which is a really bold claim that would require particularly exceptional sources. Especially if original research seems to put the claim in doubt. CorporateM (Talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS became known as a good place to work..." I'm not sure this clause is necessary. The following claim noting specific recognition by various magazines is more clear. Hrm, I think the first sentence helps provide context for the following statement about the rankings. If you feel strongly you should remove it though. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I know there was some discussion on the talk page about knocking down the size of the Software section, but I think it can be expanded somewhat. e.g. there's no mention of JMP (which is a rather large interest for SAS, especially in BI). It doesn't need to be 5 paragraphs or anything, but I think some more context can be given to the reader.  Done How's that? I just added JMP and some content about their business model. The reason this section is a bit short is because there is a separate article on the software at SAS (software). CorporateM (Talk) 21:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'd remove the bit about JMP graph builder (but that's just my opinion). Also the ref you had for JMP genomics was never added, just the name. It was causing reference errors so I replaced it with a {{cn}} tag. Otherwise it's an improvement. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Is there any other info on the education division aside from that AP article? the operations section is mainly about SAS's R&D budget. We could move the reseller program information to operations and split out R&D into a distinct paragraph. that way we have a bit on R&D (Which is important to the company and noted by many sources) and sales/ops/etc. in another paragraph. I disagree. it looks like it only has two sentences about R&D and it makes sense in that paragraph about operations and revenues, since it discusses R&D as a percent of revenue. CorporateM (Talk) 21:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'll take another look. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I think I figured out why this was bothering me. We have "In 1994, Computerworld found that out of the world's 50 largest software companies, SAS had the highest ratio of R&D spending as a percent of revenue and 2.5 times the industry average." which is true but it follows a general statement where we report that SAS has the highest R&D ratio already. Try just reporting that they were 2.5 times the industry average in that sentence and see how it reads (noting the year and the source). I think you'll be happy with it. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Looks good. Protonk (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC) SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd should probably be noted in the body of the article, though it is in a see also section. I can't see it meriting more than a couple of sentences, but I think it's closely related enough to be included. To provide some context, the reason it's not here is because it's already covered at SAS (software), which is duplicated here using Summary style. (the lawsuit is not in the Lead of the software page, so it didn't get carried over). It is also a corporate issue, so we could just copy/paste the paragraph on the lawsuit here, but then it would be on three Wikipedia pages redundantly. Not sure what to do about it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I'll see if I can write some copy. In the meantime just ignore it. :) Protonk (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC) @CorporateM: See here for a first crack. It's short and to the point. I'm surprised there isn't more coverage of the subject because it's a pretty important case in terms of software copyright, but so it goes... Protonk (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I added a period and changed "argued" to "alleged". Did you want to keep it in all three places then? (the software page, corporate page, and a dedicated page). CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC) I'm ok with the information being in multiple places so long as each (or for our concerns just the one here) are appropriate for the context. Here a short note in the company's history seems fine to me (plus it lets us get rid of the see also section). Protonk (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC) KK. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think the article could do with a little more detail on the IPO consideration. We have one sentence on it (and source--for a different claim--a US Today article which talks mainly about the process). (also we cite an AP wire story about their growth when the story is mainly about the mooted IPO)

I think the reason I didn't include more about the potential IPO from USA Today is due to Crystal Ball. Most of the content is very speculative regarding whether their staying private saved the corporate culture and it's not based on a professional analysis, such as recommended in an essay I wrote at WP:ORGSPECULATION. However if we want to add more, I'd go with something like "According to USA Today, there was a lot of pressure to go public, but by staying private James Goodnight saved the company's workplace environment from pressure from investors." CorporateM (Talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say there's more than enough commentary on the run up to the IPO (both contemporary rumors and retrospective analysis from Goodnight and third parties) to justify it. You're probably more familiar w/ the sources than I am but if you'd like I can pluck out which ones I feel can be summarised for the article. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to add that, I'd be ok with it provided the last clause is refactored a bit to avoid "saved the company's workplace culture". Paradoxically, I think a longer note can include such motivations (again, I'll have to re-read the sources to flesh that out), but in a single sentence it's tough to assert that even passing off the claim to USA Today. Would you like me to try and write up a blurb a la the World Programming lawsuit? Protonk (talk) 14:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

sources

completed

"The Associated Press reported that analysts attributed the growth to aggressive R&D spending" I don't see this claim in the cited source. Specifically I don't see the atribution to analysts.  Done I corrected the citation, though I can't find the AP article it is cited to online, it was available through ProQuest through NC State library resources. The exact text of the source is "Industry analysts say a steady emphasis on research and development has helped push SAS into the major leagues of software makers." CorporateM (Talk) 03:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure this is the best link we can send readers to. Further, it looks like the source we claim to cite is listed in the "further reading" on that page.  Not done I've used the International Directory of Company Histories on quite a few articles - unfortunately Funding Universe is the only place I've found online that provides the full text. Otherwise we have to force readers to go to their library to verify the source-text. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC) That's up to you, and so long as it's a reliable (in the colloquial sense) reprint of the original it's not a GA issue (i.e. I can't force you to prefer one version of a source over another). Protonk (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I think there a way to provide two URLs. [2] CorporateM (Talk) 23:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)  Done Nevermind, I just took it out when I realized the source you were referring to was not the international directory, but the original source in Business Leaders (I actually obtained the original source material when I wrote the article). I just took out the link. There is no online anything available - I had to get a paper copy from the library. CorporateM (Talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS Publishing was created in 2000 as a separate entity that works to make SAS-related books more accessible." cited source says "availability" which is different enough from accessible to cause me to raise an eyebrow.  Done CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Is this a reliable source? Also take a look at finding a better permanent URL, the one we have looks like it was kicked out by a broken CMS (though it does work)  Done No it's not reliable at all. It was written by a "contributor" who upon further research was a student. I took it out CorporateM (Talk) 22:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC) this link 404s  Done CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "SAS also provides employees with life counseling services for things like picking a college for their children, elderly care..." The CBS news article doesn't mention adoption, divorce, etc. so the placement of that citation is appropriate. Where's our source for the remainder?  Not done The rest: "adoption, divorce, or raising kids" is cited to the Fortune article at the end of the following sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 22:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC) rgr that. Protonk (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Why is this our source for the SAS certification program? I think it was just to confirm the year the certification program started. There are quite a few books about SAS certification[3], but none of them gave a start-date. Let me see if I can find a better source. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC) If you want to use a primary source to note the start of the program and add a secondary source to discuss details I'd support that. If that's an edit you aren't comfortable making you can note the text you think works best and I'll insert it if I agree. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Question: There are a lot of books published by SAS Books, but authored by independent consultants/experts. Do you think such a book is reliable? For example, this author looks reliable to me, if there were anything usable in his book, even if SAS Books made it easier for his book to get published and disseminated. CorporateM (Talk) 19:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)  Done I found a secondary source in a trade magazine. CorporateM (Talk) 19:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Can we find the original article written by the "Stanford professor" which Goodnight cites in this interview? Maybe it's the fast company article that 404'd but I suspect some version of it would be in a business/management journal. This looks like the original. I'll buy a copy here and see about adding it. CorporateM (Talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)  Not done That was a bust. $10 and 20 pages later, and that doesn't appear to be the right paper. There are plenty of secondary sources that mention it though and finding the original primary source probably isn't necessary. CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Ok. I'm not a fan of "member of congress citations" (e.g. where we say "A professor from Stanford..." or "A paper from MIT..."), but i think you've gone above and beyond in trying to improve the ref. Hopefully we can leave the name and affiliation and someone will happen upon the paper eventually. Protonk (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to reply inline. I'll watch this review and I'm happy to discuss points that I've made should you feel that the article doesn't need changing or I've made an error. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

James Goodnight Quotes

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 {{quote|“95 percent of a company’s assets drive out the front gate every night, the CEO must see to it that they return the following day."}}<ref name="KochanSchmalensee2003">{{cite book|author1=Thomas A. Kochan|author2=Richard Schmalensee|title=Management: Inventing and Delivering Its Future|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FP41RrwEiGoC&pg=PA117|year=2003|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-11282-6|pages=117}}</ref> <---- You can also find nearly identical quotes from Goodnight in Inc. Magazine and CBS

CorporateM (Talk) 00:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I mentioned on the GA review, SAS's reputation (as a workplace and a company to emulate) is pretty tied to Goodnight's philosophy on this subject. Multiple (read: most) sources quote him on his materialist justification for providing amenities and support and I think the article will be improved by adding a short quote on that exact subject. Protonk (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• @CorporateM: Do you mind reformatting that using {{Quote}}? If you do I'll add it to the article and close the requested edit. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done 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)

So {{quote}} 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. {{quotation}} 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)

Lead redux

I've prepared a draft expanded Lede below based on the feedback of user:Protonk in the GA review. I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to make the edit myself as a COI editor, in particular because in the past there was some discussion on whether it was promotional to include so much information about SAS as a good corporate citizen in the Lede of the article. As discussed, this is a unique case where its role as a good employer is the company's primary claim to notability and an article that is "representative of the sources" is quite positive. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

draft Lede

SAS Institute (pronounced "sass") is a developer of analytics software based in Cary, North Carolina. SAS develops and markets a suite of analytics software (also called SAS), which helps manage, access, analyze and report on data to aid in decision-making. The company is the world's largest privately-held software business and its software is used by most of the Fortune 500. SAS has developed a model workplace environment and benefits program designed to retain employees, allow them to focus on their work, and reduce operating costs. Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer from the Stanford Graduate School of Business estimated that the company saves $60–$80 million annually in expenses related to employee turnover. It provides on-site, subsidized or free healthcare, gyms, daycare and life counseling services. SAS Institute started as a project at North Carolina State University to create a "statistical analysis software" that was originally used primarily by agricultural departments at universities in the late 1960s. It became an independent, private business led by current CEO James Goodnight and three other project leaders from the university in 1976. SAS grew from $10 million in revenues in 1980 to $1.1 billion by 2000. SAS spends 20-30 percent of its revenues on research and development, 2.5 times the industry average as of 1994.

Some comments:

• "...suite of analytics software (also called SAS), which is used for things like optimizing prices, detecting fraud or analyzing the results of clinical trials." Kinda sorta. SAS is a suite of software, a runtime and a language and it's used for nearly everything (more things than Stata for example and probably Maple). They also produce other analytics and BI tools. I think we should say something like "suite of analytics and statistical software (also called SAS) as well as tools for business intelligence for a broad variety of customers and use cases". I'm not sold on that but I don't think that we need to recap the (very limited) list of uses we have in the sourcing.

What about "which is used to store, analyze and present data to aid in decision-making?" The market share numbers seem to suggest the sources don't identify all of its use cases as BI, as it also includes "advanced analytics", etc. but this seems generic enough to work. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That works, sorta. The use cases for statistical software are hard to pin down. Unlike general purpose programming languages you can't say "it's used for everything!" because often it isn't, the companies building the language/runtimes have specific customer groups in mind and make packages/apps for them. I'd nix "store" because sas doesn't really store anything (AFAIK they have a specific format for data files but it's not a defining feature)--the SAS lead mentions data management but doesn't really support it in the article. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How about that? I used "manages" data rather than "stores" per "Data Management". CorporateM (Talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm ok with leaving out the certification, publishing and user groups.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• " Analysts attributed its growth to aggressive spending in research and development." this can (and probably should) be taken out.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 23:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• What's the practice on including the name of the current CEO in the lede for these kinds of articles?

I don't normally and generally try to avoid redundancy with the infobox. Plus, COIs are always looking for excuses to add plugs and promotion for their execs, which is obnoxious. However, there is an argument for it in this case, Goodnight being more than just an exec hired to fill a position. CorporateM (Talk) 23:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Something simple mentioning co-founder James Goodnight is CEO works. You're right that it doesn't need much more. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd really like to keep in the benefits para but I would appreciate another editor taking a crack at editing it for tone.

Ok. CorporateM (Talk) 23:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Overall with some changes it will be an improvement over the current lede. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've asked an editor who is smarter than me to give some comments on the proposed lead. Should get a response within a day or so. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know that I'm the "smarter" person that Protonk (my Obi-Wan Kenobi of GA reviews) is referring to - but I do have some comments about the lead. As an aside, I was an organizational development consultant for most of my career -- and just happened to use SAS as one of my tools for analyzing data, so this article is fun for me.

• The current lead - which seems to represent a better version of the first paragraph of the draft - looks good!
• I would use the historical info and make it the second paragraph, remove "quickly" - and perhaps remove the part about R&D - unless there's a way to tie it to another cited, salient point (i.e., how has the increased spending affected the company's growth and profitability?)

SAS Institute started as a project at North Carolina State University to create a "statistical analysis software" that was originally used primarily by agricultural departments at universities in the late 1960s. It became an independent, private business led by current CEO James Goodnight and three other project leaders from the university in 1976. SAS grew quickly from $10 million in revenues in 1980 to $1.1 billion by 2000. SAS spends about 2.5 times more on R&D as a percent of revenue than the industry average at 20-30 percent.

• For the workplace benefits section, what do you think about something like:

SAS has developed a model workplace benefits program designed to retain employees, foster productivity, and reduce operating costs. Professor Jeffrey Pfeffer from the Stanford Graduate School of Business estimated that the company saves $60–$80 million annually in expenses related to employee turnover. It provides on-site, subsidized or free healthcare, gyms, daycare and life counseling services.

I hope some of this helps.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I originally asked Dank, but you're both probably smarter than me. :) Protonk (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's perfect, because it makes it a bit shorter and I think it's just about the right length now. I made the changes in the draft above with some minor tweaks. Their R&D spending I think does belong in the Lede, but please take it out if either of you disagree. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How about "SAS grew from $10 million in revenues in 1980 to $1.1 billion by 2000. A larger proportion of these revenues are spent on research and development than at most other software companies, at one point more than double the industry average."? I think that could be copy-edited but it makes the claim a bit more general and notes that the 2.5 figure was a point in time not a constant. I'd also approve of a lede cite for the claim that they spend more than most. Protonk (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Even though it's a summary for the Lede, my preference is to be more specific than "a larger proportion". I just tweaked it including the 20-30 percent number. However, keeping WP:COIMICRO in mind, I think it would be best if you go ahead with whatever you feel is best. CorporateM (Talk) 16:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Some justification: I think the lede should be a bit more evergreen than the body. I suspect it will be a while before SAS spends less on R&D than the vast majority of the software industry but they may spend 15% next year or 40% the year after that. Also 20% of revenue is a lot to spend on R&D but a reader just skimming the article may not contextualize that and the estimate of 2.5x the average from 94 may not be enough to show that not only is it more than the average it's more than the bulk of the distribution. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Storage

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)

• Arellano, Nestor (October 22, 2014). "SAS expands cloud analytics business". IT World Canada. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
• Rani, David (October 22, 2014). "SAS foresees adding 600 workers in Cary over next 3 years". The Cary News. Retrieved November 13, 2014.
• Jackson, Joab (April 27, 2015). "SAS enlarges its palette for big data analysis". IT World. Retrieved May 22, 2015.

Request edit

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.

References

CorporateM (Talk) 20:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

Recent edit

@Tschudi: 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)

The User Group section

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be something about the apparent Michigan scandal

See this 2019 newspaper article [4] -- "Five fraud victims are suing the computer system developer, SAS Analytics, and..." -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

ownership?

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) (I'm not positive it's the same SAS or Concordia....) Danchall (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)