text:
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 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 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)
 * ✅ 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: CorporateM (Talk) 04:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

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 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)
 * ✅ (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)

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:

< You can also find nearly identical quotes from Goodnight in Inc. Magazine and CBS
 * " CEO James Goodnight said "“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.""

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)
 * 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)
 * ✅ 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)

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.
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ 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)
 * ✅ 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)

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.

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

 * ✅ — 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
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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be something about the apparent Michigan scandal
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)

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)

title: Talk:SAS Institute


text:
Săcele

Săcele (German: Siebendörfer; Hungarian: Négyfalu, between 1950 and 2001 Szecseleváros) is a city in Brașov County, Romania, in the Burzenland area of southeastern Transylvania, with a population of 30,920 inhabitants in 2021. It is adjacent to the city of Brașov, its city centre being situated 15 km away from downtown Brașov.

History
The city since 1950 is composed of former villages which now form the main sectors: Baciu (Bácsfalu, Batschendorf), Turcheș (Türkös, Türkeschdorf), Cernatu (Csernátfalu, Zerndorf), and Satulung (Hosszúfalu, Langendorf). After the second half of the 11th century the villages were mentioned as "septem villae valacheles" (seven Vlach villages).

The first official mention of Săcele was an act issued on May 16, 1366, by the Hungarian King Ludovic I de Anjou in which he offers the area between the Timiș and Olt rivers to a trusted friend—Count Stanislav. Later it was under the Saxon management of Kronstadt (Brașov). Between the 13th and 14th centuries, an important Hungarian population settled in the region, marking the further development of the area.

During the Middle Ages three other villages belonged to the locality: Tărlungeni, Zizin, and Cărpiniș.

The Romanian name "Săcele" was first mentioned in a letter between the Wallachian Prince Vlad Călugărul (1482–1495) and the magistrate of Brașov. The Romanian etymology of "Săcele" is from "sătucele" meaning "small villages".

The German name was "Siebendörfen" which means "seven villages" and which is close to the Hungarian name "Hétfalu" or "Négyfalu". See also Seven Villages.

The inhabitants were the Mocani—local shepherds. They are mentioned in a few official documents and appear to have owned thousands of sheep, the villages being among the wealthiest in the area. They carried the local traditions across many Romanian lands due to the transhumance method of shepherding. Their customs exist to these days: the "Sîntilie" (Saint Elijah) festival, national costumes, etc.

After the Romanian Revolution of 1989, the city diversified its economy. In Săcele there are nowadays several small furniture factories, lumber-mills, as well as meat-packaging facilities.

Climate
Săcele has a warm-summer humid continental climate (Dfb in the Köppen climate classification).

Buildings and monuments
The city has 17 churches of the following denominations: Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, Roman Catholic.

The Orthodox Baciu Church, Turcheș Church, Cernatu Church and, in Satulung, the Dormition and Archangels churches are historic monuments.

There is a copy of the Capitoline Wolf in Săcele.

Education
Săcele houses two highs schools: the George Moroianu Theoretical High School and the István Zajzoni Rab Theoretical High School.

Sport
The local football team is FC Precizia Săcele, currently playing in Liga IV. Its home ground is Stadionul Electro-Precizia.

Population
According to the 2021 census, Săcele has a population of 30,920. At the 2011 census, the city had a population of 30,798 of which 75.1% were Romanians, 23% Hungarians, 1.2% Roma, and 0.2% Germans. At the 2002 census, 69% were Romanian Orthodox, 15.2% Evangelical Lutheran, 4.9% Roman Catholic, 3.4% each Reformed, and Pentecostal, 1.1% belong to "another religion" and 0.5% Unitarian.

International relations
Săcele is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Vire, France
 * 🇭🇺 Kisújszállás, Hungary

Natives

 * Iosif Boroș (born 1953), handball player
 * Moise Crăciun (born 1927), cross-country skier
 * George Giuglea (1884–1967), linguist and philologist
 * Alexandru Lapedatu (1876–1950), President of the Senate and of the Romanian Academy, state minister
 * Ion Lapedatu (1876–1951), finance minister, governor of the National Bank of Romania
 * Nicolae Nicoleanu (1835–1871), poet
 * Nicolae Popea (1826–1908), bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church and historian
 * Ioan Socec (1830–1896), librarian and editor

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Săcele


text:
.ge

.ge is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Georgia. .ge top-level domain names are available for direct registration for individuals and companies worldwide, without any restriction on citizenship or residence. Second-level domain names are also available for registration for several specific types of registrants:

 * .com.ge – only for commercial organizations
 * .edu.ge – only for educational institutions
 * .school.ge – only for schools
 * .gov.ge – only for governmental organizations
 * .org.ge – only for non-governmental organizations
 * .mil.ge – only for state military organizations (discontinued domain zone, mil.ge domain registered to Ministry)
 * .net.ge – only for network provider or network project organizations
 * .pvt.ge – only for private persons

History
.ge was delegated to Georgian ISP SaNet in 1992. In 2006 Caucasus Online has been formed after merger of 3 companies (including SaNet) and became sponsor of .ge. Registration service was initially provided by non-profit organization Internet Development Group - Georgia, but after introduction of Caucasus Online it exclusively consolidated both administrative and registrar roles. .gov.ge was delegated to LEPL Smart Logic in 2014.

Registrar Companies
Since April 16, 2018, according to renewed regulations of Registration and administration of .GE domain, Caucasus Online administrates only the .GE country code top-level domain. The registrar's functions and duties are exercised by registrars, accredited by Caucasus Online, who will register and manage .GE domain names; The .GE country code top level domain is registered by accredited companies.

.გე
In 2011, a new top-level domain name was registered for Georgia, intended for domain names in the local language. The top-level domain is .გე (.xn--node), which are the Georgian letters gani and eni, representing G and E rather than an abbreviation of the nation's native name, Sakartvelo. It became active with active web sites in 2016.

Starting January 20, 2016, Georgia registered .გე top-level domains using Georgian Mkhedruli script. At first, the process started for reservation of governmental and commercial TLDs but after 6 months from start date, registration of IDN ccTLDs became available to the general public.

title: .ge


text:
Chief Financial Officers Act

The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–576) signed into law by President George H. W. Bush on November 15, 1990, is a United States federal law intended to improve the government's financial management, outlining standards of financial performance and disclosure. Among other measures, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was given greater authority over federal financial management. For each of 24 federal departments and agencies, the position of chief financial officer was created. In accordance with the CFO Act, each agency or department vests its financial management functions in its chief financial officer. The following is a list of the 24 affected agencies, which includes all 15 federal executive departments whose heads are included in the Cabinet of the United States, as well as other large agencies:

 * Department of Agriculture
 * Department of Commerce
 * Department of Defense
 * Department of Education
 * Department of Energy
 * Department of Health and Human Services
 * Department of Homeland Security
 * Department of Housing and Urban Development
 * Department of the Interior
 * Department of Justice
 * Department of Labor
 * Department of State
 * Department of Transportation
 * Department of Treasury
 * Department of Veterans Affairs
 * Environmental Protection Agency
 * National Aeronautics and Space Administration
 * Agency for International Development
 * Social Security Administration
 * General Services Administration
 * National Science Foundation
 * Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 * Office of Personnel Management
 * Small Business Administration

The Act created a new position in the OMB, the Deputy Director for Management, who is the government's chief financial management official. It also created a new sub-division of the OMB, the Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM), to carry out government-wide financial management responsibilities. The OFFM's chief officer was designated as the newly created Controller position. Both the Deputy Director for Management and the Controller are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The Committee on Government Reform oversees the management and infrastructure of the federal agencies, including those covered by the CFO Act.

The CFO Act also established the CFO Council, consisting of the CFOs and Deputy CFOs of the largest federal agencies and senior officials of OMB and Treasury.

For a discussion of the history and motivation underlying the CFO Act - with particular emphasis on the difficulties the U.S. Department of Defense has experienced attempting to comply with the financial-statement reporting requirements of the Act - see "Financial Accountability at the DOD: Reviewing the Bidding," published in the July 2009 issue of the Defense Acquisition Review Journal, pgs. 181–196.

The CFO Act was authored by staff of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, now the Committee of Government Oversight and Reform, under the leadership of Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Ranking Minority Member Frank Horton (R-NY). The CFO Act passed the House of Representatives by Unanimous Consent.

Federal agencies not listed above, including at least 75 small or "micro" agencies, are not subject to the CFO Act. These agencies may be subject to other financial reporting standards under provisions such as the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002.

title: Chief Financial Officers Act


text:
Archer Heights, Chicago

Archer Heights is a community area in Chicago, Illinois, one of the 77 official community areas of Chicago.

Archer Avenue runs from south of Chicago's downtown area, through the southwest side of Chicago and beyond into the southwest suburbs, along what was once a Native American trail. The neighborhood is bounded by the Stevenson Expressway to the north, the CTA Orange Line to the south, the Corwith railyard to the east, and the railroad tracks/Knox Avenue to the west.

History
Archer Heights was originally inhabited by Native American tribes. Starting in the nineteenth-century, land speculators and farmers sparked interest in the swampy lands. The land became a primary focus for real-estate developers and manufacturers. It gained exceptional interest from William B. Archer, an Illinois & Michigan Canal commissioner and land speculator from whom Archer Heights gained its name.

After speculators came in in 1900 and developed the southern sections of Archer Heights for residential use, railroads sustained control of the north side real estate. Due to horse cars in the late 1890s, and electric streetcars gaining popularity in the early 1900s, immigrant laborers started to pour into Archer Heights. Starting in the 1920s and 1930s, Archer Heights had its largest population growth coming from the Polish, Italian, Czech, and Russian Jewish communities. During this time modern urban groundwork and two Catholic parishes, St. Bruno's (1925) and St. Richard's (1938), helped stimulate population growth.

After World War II population began to make a comeback; between 1930 and 1950, the Archer Heights community grew from 8,120 to 8,675. In the following years the population sprouted to 10,584, peaking by 1970 at 11,143. However, by 1980, the population fell off to 9,708, and continued to do so in 1990 falling to 9,227.

For over 90 years, the Archer Heights community has been predominantly white (96 percent in 1990), with a large contingent of foreign-born residents (27 percent in 1990), and a strong Polish cohort. In the 1990s, Hispanics, and primarily Mexicans, rose to 8 percent of the population. "While Archer Heights continues to be home to a large Polish community, since 2000 it became the latest swath of the Southwest Side bungalow belt where Hispanics have become the majority."

At the end of the twentieth century, approximately 60 percent of the area was dedicated to manufacturing and bulk transportation facilities, 30 percent to residences, and 10 percent to commerce.

CPS District-Run Schools
Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has two district-run schools in Archer Heights: S Archer Ave, Chicago, IL 60632  4815 South Karlov Avenue, Chicago, IL 60632 http://edwardsib.org
 * Curie Metropolitan High School
 * Edwards Elementary School

CPS Charter Schools
The United Neighborhood Organization operates the charter schools in Archer Heights 4248 W 47th St, Chicago, IL 60632
 * UCSN Major Hector P. Garcia MD High School

http://www.ucsnschools.org 4248 W 47th St, Chicago, IL 60632
 * UCSN PFC Omar E. Torres School

http://www.ucsnschools.org 4647 W. 47th St. Chicago, IL 60632
 * Academy for Global Citizenship (Elementary)

http://schoolinfo.cps.edu/schoolprofile/schooldetails.aspx?SchoolId=400009 4248 W 47th St Chicago, IL 60632
 * SPC Daniel Zizumbo School

https://web.archive.org/web/20160625180632/https://www.incschools.org/school/ucsn-spc-daniel-zizumbo/

Catholic schools
5025 S. Kenneth Ave. Chicago, IL 60632
 * St. Richard School (Elementary)

http://www.strichard.net 4839 S. Harding Ave. Chicago, IL 60632
 * St. Bruno School (Elementary)

http://stbruno.com

Library
Archer Heights Public Library

The Archer Heights public library is a 6 million dollar, 14,000 sq/ft building located at 5055 S. Archer Ave. Chicago Illinois. The library is home to over 49,000 materials ranging from books, magazines, book tapes, and newspapers. Link
 * http://www.chipublib.org/locations/4/

Transportation
Historically, transportation between downtown Chicago and the Southwest Side was limited to express buses that traveled down the Stevenson Expressway. The Orange Line was created in 1993 to solve this issue. Pulaski station was built as an Orange Line stop at the corner of Pulaski Road and 51st Street near Archer Avenue.

Politics
The Archer Heights community area has supported the Democratic Party in the past two presidential elections by overwhelming margins. In the 2016 presidential election, the Archer Heights cast 2,803 votes for Hillary Clinton and cast 527 votes for Donald Trump (81.22% to 15.27%). In the 2012 presidential election, Archer Heights cast 2,140 votes for Barack Obama and cast 494 votes for Mitt Romney (80.03% to 18.47%).

Archer Heights Civic Association
Founded in 1938, Archer Heights Civic Association (AHCA) is the oldest active neighborhood organization in Southwest Chicago, serving the Archer Heights community. In 1968, AHCA had meetings with local aldermen and the Chicago Park District Superintendent to present a list of improvements needed at Archer Park, including a field house. The Archer Park field house eventually opened in 1970. Originally formed as a homeowner's association, AHCA also functions as a community watchdog, for example, pressuring for enforcement of zoning laws.

Others

 * Greater Chicago Food Depository
 * Chicago Electrical Trauma Rehabilitation Institute
 * United Awareness Front
 * Polish Highlanders Alliance of North America

Honored residents

 * 48th Street and Harding Avenue dedicated an honorary street sign to recognize Henry J. "Hank" Rutkowski Sr. "Rutkowski is a decorated World War II veteran and former prisoner of war", he received the Good Conduct Medal, the Air Medal, the European Theatre of War Medal, and the Prisoner of War Medal. Following the war he worked for 40 years for Schulze & Birch, he retired in 1993.
 * 47th Street and Keeler Avenue dedicated a street sign for Omar Torres. "Private First Class Omar E. Torres died in combat in Iraq, 2007." Torres was one of three children, his sister Oralia and brother, Oscar Jr. Where raised by Doris and Oscar Torres Sr.

Events

 * St. Bruno Catholic Church Carnival
 * St. Richard Family Fest and Carnival and Rocket Run 5k
 * http://www.strichardrocketrun.com/
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20151008061438/http://strichard.wix.com/carnival

Government
Archer Heights is split by two United States congressional districts, these districts are the 3rd and 4th. Marie Newman (3rd district) serves the South West, and Jesús "Chuy" García serves the North East Side of Archer Heights.

Alderman Edward M. Burke served the 14th ward of Chicago for over 50 years, but Jeylú Gutiérrez was elected alderman for the 14th ward in the 2023 election. Alderman Ricardo Muñoz serves the 22nd ward. Michael R. Zalewski is the alderman for the 23rd ward.

Archer Heights is also represented in the 1st district of the Illinois Senate and House, their Senator is Assistant Majority Leader, Democrat Antonio Munoz and their House Rep. is Assistant Majority Leader, Democrat Daniel J. Burke.

Jeffery R. Tobolski was elected as the Cook County Commissioner from the 16th District on November 2, 2010. Tobolski is the Vice-Chairman of the Labor Committee; also at the Cook County Board he chairs the Homeland Security committee, Veterans Committee, as well as the Preserve's Zoo Committee.

John P. Daley is the Cook County Commissioner of the 11th District. He serves on the Cook County Board Committee as the Audit and Finance Chairman.

South Chicago Post
http://www.swchicagopost.com

Southwest news Herald
http://swnewsherald.com

title: Archer Heights, Chicago


text:
.gf

.gf is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for French Guiana. It is delegated to the ISP Canal+ Telecom.

title: .gf


text:
.gh

.gh is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Ghana.

Second level domains

 * .com.gh - for companies
 * .edu.gh - for schools
 * .gov.gh - for government

There are some exceptions to these domains: parliament.gh for the Parliament of Ghana, isoc.gh for the ISOC Ghana Chapter, nic.gh for the Ghana Network Information Center, cocobod.gh for the Ghana Cocoa Board, techgov.gh for Techgov and yellowpages.gh for the Yellow Pages Ghana Directory.

title: .gh


text:
User talk:Alejandro Matos~enwiki

Wellcome me :)

--Alejandro Matos 18:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) Sure thing!

Hello, Alejandro Matos~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! goose121 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Alejandro Matos. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Alejandro Matos~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alejandro Matos~enwiki


text:
Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 4

Archive

 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 1
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/ Archive 2
 * Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3

Neutrality

 * ''See archive Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II/Archive 3

Please post reasons for "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see its talk page." in the next 24 hours or I will remove the template. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Normally, crews were given a strategic aiming point - anything from a factory to a railway junction
This shows a complete lack of of awarness of pathfinders and how the technology of 44/45 limited most of the RAF night bombers from aiming at anything other than the flares put down by the Pathfinders. (See Gee (navigation), Oboe (navigation), and H2S radar. So I am going to remove it. Philip Baird Shearer 01:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Avoid weasel terms
Avoid weasel terms -- "Many people regard" - Philip Baird Shearer

Whether they are right or wrong, clearly many believe the bombing of Dresden to have been a war crime. to give just a few support that view. I suggest that next time Leif use some or all of these sources.Dr Zen 08:29, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I didn't add this sentence in the first place, I just restored it and modified it slightly after Philip had removed it. All the same, I do think that the information elsewhere in the article (eg the "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" section, External links section, etc) are adequate to keep the sentence as it was, without linking sources for it from the opening paragraph.  ~leif (talk)    08:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3830135.stm uses weasel terms but no statistics to back them up. One can just as easily say "Many people do not regard".
 * 2) http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer58.html did you read it?  Churchill, the monster who ordered the Dresden slaughter, was knighted, and the rest is history.  Are you still suggesting that this is a source which should be used by Wikipedia?
 * 3) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm Good article, but only one(?) person in it states it was a crime none apart from Churchill (?) states it was terror. -- Which is why I used his quote. BTW I've put in "(?) because I have only skimmed the article and I may have miscounted.
 * 4) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2416 -- This article is why the phrase about "war crimes" is better delt with in more detail. As it is in "Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Was the Dresden bombing justified?" instead of the introductory section.
 * 5) http://chomsky.info/talks/1990.htm  "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." Enough said. If you think that this is a valid source then any conclusions drawn from it shoul be placed in a section where a counter analysis is possible.
 * Just because Noam Chomsky makes an extreme statement to open the article does not mean that the article is not valid or that it is nonfactual. It's pretty clear that most US presidents engage in acts which would be war crimes.  Why do you think Bush is so eager to have laws exempting US personnel from war crimes prosecution???  Because everything the US does is good ? Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I do not mind the statment appearing lower down but not in a brief introduction where it can not be refuted in detail. To prove the point I have turned the source on its head by adding "do not". Lets talk about it. Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The bit about people believing they should be tried as war criminals was redundant; it can be inferred from the fact they believe it was a warcrime. The external links should go in the links section. --Khendon 09:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Philip, these were just the first handful I could drag Google from Dresden. I could come up with countless others, and you know it. That's why we say "many". I'm quite happy for it to read as I had it, lose the sources, and to give the opposite view: "however, some believe it to have been necessary in the context of total war" or whatever. Weasel words are in this instance far preferable to littering the article with thousands of so-so references and bickering over them. I agree with Leif overall. The intro sums up the material presented elsewhere. Dr Zen 09:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * So we are all agreed that there are already good articles at the end of the document and that the references are not needed.

 * The sentence which is there now is even worse than the original! "Some regard the bombing as a war crime and an act of state terrorism, while others believe it was a justified act of war." This can be read that those who think that the bombing was justified think that it was a war crime and state terrorism but war justified it. Which is not true. There are good legal reasons for thinking that it was neither.
 * as it pointed out lower down in the article. One can not say that it was a war crime.
 * To say that this is state terrorism could be said about any act in war. For example one can argue the the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was state terrorism because it was the use of violence by a state as a means of political intimidation and control. The definition given in the article is "The use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (i.e. a means of repression)". The bombing of Dresden was not about "repression".
 * what was the firebombing of Dresden about then? Humanitarian aid?  Decreasing the fire shortage?  A happy barbeque party? Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * The article starts with the phrase "remains controversial after more than 50 years" It contains in the section on "Was the Dresden bombing justified?". The advantage of using the Churchill quote in the introduction is that it allows the concerns of "many people" to be indicated without the need to use a weasel statement. However given the first sentence this one could simpley be removed.Philip Baird Shearer 10:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It cannot be considered a crime because no one was tried." LOL. If Hitler had won, Churchill would have swung. What a foolish argument and one that even a rampant POV pusher should be ashamed of making!Dr Zen 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Where does the quote come from? Unlike the waging of unrestricted submarine warfare, for which Karl Donitz was tried and found guilty; assault by aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory was never tried, so "it is not possible to state categorically that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was a war crime." See Hague IV Arts 25,26,27. German "aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory" (V1s and V2s) was not tried, but it was (imo) in breach of Hague IV 26. In the bombardment of Dresden
 * What crime was committed?
 * What crime do you think was committed? Philip Baird Shearer 08:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lacking a good reason to not include the sentence in question, I have restored it again. I followed Khendon's suggestion, and removed the redundancy of saying war crimes and war criminals in the same sentence. Philip, I think that to state that "many people" believe a thing is not necessarily "weasel terms", but I would certainly not oppose improved alternate wordings that convey the same information. " ~leif (talk)    10:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * Because I can add the words "do not" and the sentence you have added and it would be just as true. the wording "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids." already covers the point you and I wish to make. The sentence you have added is PVO and bloat to the introduction. Yet another sentence to balance it would just bloat the introduction further. As both POVs are covered "Was the Dresden bombing justified" section why not leave the controversy to that section? [BTW centred is a correct spelling (as is centered) but squatters rights makes centred correct in this case].

 * I have just covered why "war crime" is a POV in (my last reply). Do I need to explain it further to you? I also covered "state terrorism" a little higher up this section but to expand it further. The definition of "state terrorism" in the article "state terrorism" does not cover acts like the bombing of Dresden "(i.e. a means of repression)". The article also goes on to say "However, many contend that states cannot commit acts of terror and/or that acts of terror cannot be committed within the scope of a declared war."  See my comments above about the Normandy invasion. This is too much to add to a introductory paragraph so it is better put into the section "as the Dresden bombing justified" where the arguments can be expanded.Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Saying that "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids" does not convey the same meaning as "many people regard it as a war crime or an act of state terrorism"
 * The article about state terrorism actually does specifically address Dresden and some of the reasons why many people believe that it qualifies.
 * Your comments above about the invasion of Normandy are a non-sequitur - one event involved troops fighting other troops, on the ground, while the other was solely an air raid on a civilian population.
 * I can't/won't argue with you about if Dresden was a war crime because I suspect you'll always fall back on your argument that, since nobody was tried for it, it can't be one. That many people do regard it as one is a fact, however, and I think it's one worth of mentioning in the opening. There are numerous references to people saying it was one, and I have seen only a handful saying it was not. I don't have time to argue on and on about this right now, but unless someone can provide a good reason to not include this sentence I will probably continue to re-add it to the article if Philip keeps removing it. Philip lost his credibility, in my opinion, when he inserted DO NOT before the word regard in the sentence in question. I take the statement's continued presence in the paragraph for a good length of time (I haven't found exactly when it was first added, but there was something about war crimes in the opening paragraph at least a year ago) as approval by other editors who read it, and so far I've only seen one person (Philip) who wants no mention of war crimes there at all.
 * Also, btw, I did not realize that centred was a valid spelling, sorry about changing that (my spellchecker didn't know it either). I don't follow your reference to squatters rights though; what do you mean by that?  ~leif (talk)    20:15, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is an agreement in English Wikipedia not to change the spellings between American spelling and other spellings, unless it is to make the spelling consistent throughout a page, therefore the first correct spelling whether American or other should be left alone to squat on the page unless there is a rule (legal reason) to evict it.

I have not said that it was not war crime. It have not said that it was not one because no one was tried for the act of bombing Dresden. I have said that as no one was tried for the ANY act of "aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II", it is not possible to state categorically that that aerial bombardment on defended enemy territory during World War II was a war crime. As the POV appears in a section were it is possible to place it in context, I do not think that a POV statement dressed up in weasel words should be in the introduction as a replacement sentence like "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids." expresses the same thing without a POV. I do not want to get into an edit war with you, and you have stated that you "can't/won't argue" and that "I will probably continue to re-add it to the article if Philip keeps removing it" so I suggest that we have a straw poll on the question with two options:Philip Baird Shearer

 * 1) Many people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism, and believe that the allied commanders who ordered the action and the airmen who carried it out should have been tried as war criminals.
 * 2) The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.

Please alter (1) to whatever wording you like here on this page and then we will have a Dispute resolution straw poll on the issue.Philip Baird Shearer 23:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't object to the first sentence, but think it is wrong to have it in the intro by itself, without stating the other side (that no German was tried for any Lutwaffe bombing of civilians [Warsaw, Hague, London, etc, etc], that some British leaders thought they were acting for real military goals, etc). So either we should give both sides in the intro para, or neither. I would much prefer the latter, and leave the intro with just i) a bald statement of the facts, and ii) note that it remains controversial. Noel (talk) 04:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * A straw poll is a good idea. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus within a week or so.  ~leif (talk)    21:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

OK, but then I'd want to see four options in said poll:

 * 1) Simple statement that there is controversy around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.
 * 2) Statement that some people consider the bombings a war crime, and no countervailing viewpoint.
 * 3) Statement that some people consider the bombings to have been a then-acceptable act of war, and no countervailing viewpoint.
 * 4) Statements on both sides.

Personally, I would consider either 2 or 3 to be non-NPOV, and thus completely unaccepable, and would therefore argue that they aren't legitimate options. That leaves us with 1 or 4, either of which would be OK with me, but I think the article would flow better with 1. Noel (talk) 22:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, if nobody objects, lets use those poll options instead.  ~leif ☺ HELO 23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Straw poll
Which sentence should appear at the end of the opening paragraph?

 * 1) Simple statement that there is controversy around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.
 * 2) The rest are just begging for prepetual NPOV issues. →Raul654 02:21, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Of the two NPOV-acceptable ones (1 and 4), I prefer this one, to keep the intro crisp. Noel (talk) 04:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Go into more detail later in the article, by all means, but keep the intro free of discussion. I suggest simply deleting the last sentence of the intro and adding more facts, e.g. "x,000 civilans died and x% of the city was destroyed." [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk  ]] 21:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:39, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree with Noel 1 and 4 only NPOV and 1 is crisp. Nicholsr 22:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) I prefer option (1) of this straw poll. -- WLD 23:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Agree with this. See my comments below. -- llywrch 18:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Option 1 works better, details on both sides appear later.  Edeans 08:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Option 1 is the only possible choice for an encyclopedia.  It the only choice not only because it is a flat factual statement, but also because it is bad writing practice to throw a lot of complications at the reader in the first paragraph.  Ortolan88 19:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) PS - added comment below under Intro ... Ortolan88

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

 * 1) Statement that some people consider the bombings a war crime, and no countervailing viewpoint.
 * 2) support as this is the central issue of the article. Pedant 17:18, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
 * 3) I support this option, because the alternate point of view can be adequately addressed later in the article. The allegations that it was a war crime are much more notable than the to-be-expected position from some that it was not.   ~leif (talk)    23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I support this option because if there were no controversy there would be no article, and there is controversy because and only because some believe the bombings to have been criminal acts. It is not in the least "POV" to state that that is what the controversy is, and very much "POV" to pretend that we're just writing an article on it as a matter of interest. The interest of some here is solely to write an apologia for the bombing. Why do they feel the need? Dr Zen 06:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) * Huh? Option one is to say precisely, right up top, that there is controversy over whether the bombings were justified and/or 'right'. Nobody's trying to sweep anything under the rug. And your claim that "no controversy" -> "no article" fails - see comments below about the article on the attack on Hamburg. And I consider your claim that "The interest of some here is solely to write an apologia" to be i) wrong, ii) self-righteous, iii) insulting, and iv) offensive. If you can please assume that those who disagree with you are not some combination of evil and/or stupid, we'll return the favour. Noel (talk) 13:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) ** Option one leaves the article not mentioning "war crimes" until halfway through it. Just saying it is controversial is a massive understatement, catering to the POV that it was not a war crime, a POV which it appears Philip was been slowly but surely promoting more in this article for quite some time. ~leif
 * 7) ** I'd be OK with somewhat punchier language than "controversial", to make it clear how deep some people's assessment is, but without some more data as to how widely the "war crime" POV is held, I don't know how to balance the treatment of the two (actually, many) views. That's part of what leads me towards quite brief language in the opening - how to accurately convey what is a very complex set of views in such a small amount of language. It's easier to just put it off until you have more space... Noel (talk) 22:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

 * 1) Statement that some people consider the bombings to have been a then-acceptable act of war, and no countervailing viewpoint.
 * 2)  I support this option, because the alternate point of view can be adequately addressed later in the article. The allegations that it was not a war crime are much more notable than the to-be-expected position from some that it was.  Obviously, this is here to try and get Leif to read his words (above) and see them with other eyes. User:jnc
 * 3) *Yes, fine, hilariously funny. However, there were many "then-acceptable" acts of war that do not get their own article. Why?Dr Zen 06:55, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) * Good question, actually. Almost every German city was heavily bombed, but only a few of these attacks have articles. E.g. Cologne, the target of the first '1,000 bomber raid', has no article on that attack. The article on the fire-bombing of Hamburg has gone to the other end of the spectrum from this one, and has no discussion of the necessity/legality/morality of area bombing of cities. Which maybe says that we ought to have an article about that specific topic, where we can marshall the data and arguments at length, instead of having it scattered in dribs and drabs in various articles on specific acts. We can then reference it from all the relevant pages (Hamburg, etc). Noel (talk) 13:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) **See the article on terror bombing. It could use some work; it does not adequately cover the POV that bombing civilians is legal and acceptable, but it it does make it clear that the practice continues. ~leif

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

 * 1) Statements on both sides.
 * 2) I also would support this option, if a decent NPOV sentence is written that summarizes both   ~leif</tt> (talk)    23:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't see how choice one is workable but could vote for choice one if a workable wording could be proposed. Rmhermen 02:46, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) * Huh? I think it would be much easier to craft the words for option one than acceptable wording for this one. (See the discussion below, for instance...) Noel (talk) 04:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

poll closed at 12:00 December 20 2004

Comments
I think that options 2, 3, and 4 are are just begging for perpetual NPOV issues and weasel words. I think that the options should be replaced with the text which is proposed for each one so that people know what they are voting for. I suggest for option (1), that to help clarify the statement the word "justifications" can be linked to the subsection heading "Was the Dresden bombing justified?":
 * The controversy is centred around the legal and moral justifications for the raids.

If this was done would the words be acceptable to you Rmhermen? If not what do you think would be "workable wording"?

leif Please can you place you comments in this comment section, as I can not tell which option you have voted for (one man one vote).
 * One man one vote?! I don't think so. Approval voting has a better chance of building consensus. ~leif
 * Being a simple sole I find it confusing, so I would appreciate it if you would not do it. PBS
 * That is outlandish. No, I most certainly will not vote against all but a single option just to satisfy your confusion. In a four-way poll, the chances of reaching consensus would be pretty slim if each person could only approve one option. Approval voting is simple and used widely on wikipedia. I'm amazed you would suggest otherwise. ~leif

leif you say "that it was a war crime", what was the alleged war crime which you think was committed? If you do that then 2 might be an option with a little less POV but I doubt it.
 * I have not suggested that the article should definitively state that it was a war crime. The crime that I think was committed was intentionally killing huge a huge number of civilians. I know that many people do not consider killing civilians to be a crime (I think I've actually read you say it isn't), and I don't object to representing that POV in the article also. I think a short sentence could be written for option 4 that would not add too much bloat to the opening, but if such a sentence is not written, I support option 2. ~leif

 * It's not at all clear that their primary intention (as opposed to an inevitable side-effect, one they knew about and accepted before-hand) was to "kill[] a huge number of civilians". Yes, this distinction is a fine hair which won't bring much comfort to the victims and their families, etc, but fine distinctions of this sort, with the same lack of comfort to the victims, are common in legal proceedings, and can have enormous effects on the outcome (e.g. someone who kills someone in what they maintain was self-defense). Noel (talk) 04:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have not been able to find a primary source which says that targeting civilians in enemy territory is a crime. This surprises me because the British Government was careful to state that they were targeting property useful to the German war effort, not Germans. But this is somting we can discuss further after the poll. PBS

I think that option (4) is a realy bad idea because it adds bloat. For example:
 * One can argue that before the failure of the battle of Berlin (air) that the British, as the Germans before them, were committed to a "state terror" bombing campaign because they were trying to do massive material and morale damage to the enemy in a total war. But after the failure of the battle of Berlin, with the directive, dated 25 September 1944, recommending that RAF Bomber Command concentrate on oil and communications targets, which was the American position, the former policy and hopes were abandoned. The primary reason for bombing Dresden was for its communications links the secondary reason (See Yalta) was that it still had a relatively intact arms industry. There is very little to no evidence that the Allied High Command expected to be able to alter German morale, let alone Hitler's views, by this raid.

I do not see how this explanation can be comfortably placed in the introductory section (because it is so large) when there is already a section where this can be covered if necessary. To put "Many [why not some?] people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism and many [why not some?] do not" is just POV with no useful information. "Many people regard the bombing as an act of state terrorism because they do not know about the directive, dated 25 September 1944, recommending that RAF Bomber Command concentrate on oil and communications targets". Would give a lot more information but would probably be unacceptable to you and would add bloat to the introduction when in could go into the appropriate section. Philip Baird Shearer 21:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * So, Philip, if it were solely up to you, would this article contain the words "war crime" at all? If it would, how do you think it should be mentioned (without using the "weasel words" you dislike)?  <tt>~leif</tt> (talk)    21:55, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, come on, nobody's saying that this article ought to be a total whitewash, and your implication above ('would this article contain the words "war crime" at all') is distasteful (not to mention sanctimonious). This bombing (and also Hamburg, and all the other ones that get less visibility) is very troubling, but we need to be accurate about the complexities of the situation, and also do so in a way that respects that the mental framework of today is not the framework of then, and it's unfair to apply today's standards to then (just as it's unfair to criticize, say, the Greeks of Pericles' era for allowing slavery, using today's moral framework). Noel (talk) 04:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I know that you are not trying to make the article be a total whitewash, but after reading the archives of this talk page, it wouldn't seem so far fetched to say that Philip is.  <tt>~leif</tt> ☺ HELO 19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * YES "war crime" should be mentioned in the section "Was the Dresden bombing justified?" as one of the legal controversies mentioned in the phrase "The controversy is centred around the legal and moral...". Indeed to avoid "weasel words" one could start the sentence. "The legal controversy surrounding the Dresden bombing is whether it constituted a war crime..." and "The moral controversy surrounding the bombing is whether the Allies should have considered..." There is room in that section to put both sides of the argument which there is not in the introduction. But I suggest we leave that one until the introduction is bedded inPhilip Baird Shearer 23:43, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem with language like "war crimes" & "state terrorism" is that they inflame readers, rather than enlighten. Their use may cause a sceptical reader to react strongly over the langauge, & ignore its content. This is of even greater importance as the article now stands, because these words are not attributed to anyone; one could conclude that this language was added to disingenuously discredit this opinion, e.g.: "Some people (wink) whine over what happened in Dresden, but here are rational reasons why it happened. And we all know that, unfortunately, civilians suffer during wartime. So this whole accusation is nothing more than making a mountain out of a mole hill."

 * I am not saying that no one has ever criticized this military action; I remember hearing many years ago that it was considered an atrocity -- although I do not know who should be creditted with that opinion. (And I doubt that people were simply repeating Noam Chomsky's judgement, because the people I heard it from probably never heard of him.) This article needs to add those quotations to make it a truly NPOV article. -- llywrch 18:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In reply to Dr Zen (6am 13 Dec). The Bombing of Hamburg in World War II, Bombing of Kassel in World War II and The Blitz have not a mention of "war crimes" or an "apologia" yet articles have been written. Who has written "solely to write an apologia"? "Why do they feel the need" are weasel words. There is a whole section on the controversy so why emphasise one POV in the introduction? There are articles on lots of things which happened in World War II written as a matter of interest and to write "if there were no controversy there would be no article" is just wrong. You go on to say "and there is controversy because and only because some believe the bombings to have been criminal acts." No there is also the moral issue of should the Allied high command, knowing the effects of earlier raids, not have considered German civilian loss of life when selecting targets at Yalta. The arguments put forward by British political opponents of Area Bombing during the war were moral, none of them (in the texts I have seen) argued that it was illegal. It is precisely because the type of thing which you have written above that option (1) is the best so that the subject can be discussed in detail in the appropriate sub-section. Philip Baird Shearer 13:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I doubt Dr. Zen meant that those other events shouldn't have articles, just that the most notable thing about dresden is that it is widely believed to have been a totally unjustifiable war crime. Describing Dr. Zen's comments to you now as "weasel words" makes me wonder if you've even read the Avoid weasel terms page you linked to. That guideline is about article text, not discussions. Also, having just re-read said page now, I think that the exceptions to the rule clearly apply here, to the actual article dispute in question: - "When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion." - it is - "When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify." - they are. If we can apply the weasel words label to things people say on talk, then I think your habit of calling things you don't like weasel words is weasel words.  <tt>~leif</tt> (talk)    19:14, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have no strong concern with how its worded. I am concerned that there be appropriate citations for whatever opinions are mentioned. If the wording is "Many people regard", that should be followed with at least three citations showing different notable people who hold this opinion. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * A straw poll is a good idea. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus within a week or so. ~leif (talk) 21:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

It is now over a week and there had been no additional vote for 3 days (since 19:26, 16 Dec 2004). There is a clear majority for option 1. So unless anyone objects I suggest that this straw poll is closed at 12:00 tomorrow Dec 20. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intro for every article on every battle and every war
Should every article on every battle and every war start out like this?

 * The action described here was stupid and cruel and would not have happened without greed, ignorance, and human failure of the worst kind. The pain and horror of this event are unimaginable and can only be excused by hypothetical justifications of what would have happened otherwise.

In other words, my vote is for Option 1, recorded above. Ortolan88 19:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'and people were sucked into the fire.'
Any evidence for this? Unless windspeeds exceeded ~150mph, unlikely. Rather sensasionalist. Dan100 18:34, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bombing of Dresden/Archive 4


text:
Key West Street Car Company

The Key West Street Car Company was incorporated by Florida state law chapter 3658, approved February 12, 1885, to establish a street railroad for public transportation in Key West, Florida.

The law stated the company had a right "to construct and operate a line of railway or railroads on any or all the streets in the city of Key West, as per charter granted by the Board of Aldermen of said city of Key West, Florida, and the right to extend or build said road upon any and all the avenues, streets or roads leading into said city of Key West, and upon all roads on the island of Key West; and said company shall further have the right to operate said line or lines of railroad, or any of them, with steam or horse power."

It was established and owned by Walter C. Maloney, Edward H. Gato, Lewis W. Pierce, George G. Watson, John White, and Charles B. Pendleton.

title: Key West Street Car Company


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue plate special

Blue-plate special
Blue-plate special was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Note: Deb has withdrawn the listing. (See below)

Note: This article has been substantially expanded since this VfD began.

Never heard of this. Is it an American concept? Deb 18:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes. It apparently dates back to the early days of diners, and the term is well-known enough that it's been used for a rock band and at least two different radio shows that I know of.  It gets about 38,800 hits.  I think that the useful content might be better merged to a larger article, though, perhaps Diner itself.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)  In light of the expansion of this article, I'm changing my vote to Keep.  Now if someone could give similar TLC to the sad and lonely Diner...  -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good colloquial or idiomatic phrase still in wide use in the U.S.—I just got some 30,000 Google hits on it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) I've now expanded it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ensure that redirects are in place to catch this as either blue-plate special or blue plate special. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Current content is a dicdef that should be transwikied to Wiktionary. I think this is expandable, though.  Probable keep.  Rossami (talk) 22:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, culturally significant mid-20th century Eastern U.S., at least. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:07, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Expanded. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC) Note: revision originally nominated for VfD was two sentences, as follows:
 * The "Blue Plate Special" is often the name given for a special discount or sale offered in a restaurant. It tends to change within very short periods of time.

 * Keep: DCEdwards1966 23:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well researched article on a much-used US phrase that I've often wondered about.  Good encyclopedia material. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rhobite 16:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep smal but significant american cultural topic ike9898 17:48, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In view of the substantial changes to the article (not to mention the change of title), I withdraw my nomination. Deb 18:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
.gi

.gi is the country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory.

Second-level domain names

 * .com.gi (commercial organisations)
 * .ltd.gi (registered public or private limited companies)
 * .gov.gi (Gibraltar government departments, bodies, and associated government-funded organisations)
 * .mod.gi (Gibraltar Ministry of Defence departments)
 * .edu.gi (schools and Education departments)
 * .org.gi (non-commercial organisations)

Use in Girona
It has been used for some official domains for the Spanish city of Girona due to its coincidence in abbreviation. This limited use began prior to the creation of the .cat TLD because of Catalan reluctance to use domains under the Spanish country code TLD .es. Subsequent rules changes prevent new 2nd level registrations directly under .gi for entities not connected with Gibraltar.

title: .gi


text:
Diadems

The Diadems was one of the bands created by the 3rd French season of the popular reality show "Popstars", called "Popstars - the Duel" aired on RTL Group TV channel Métropole 6 (better known as M6) in fall 2003. This all-girls band "lost" the duel with their male opponents called "Linkup" but still won a contract deal with Universal Music Group.

The band consisted of Marylore (from Lyon), Angel' (from Marseille), Pookie (From Neuilly-Sur-Marne), Ophélie (from Northern France) and Alexandra (from La Seyne-sur-Mer).

Their first single - a heavy rock track called "Encore" (Again) - reached the 4th rank in the French charts, but due to a too low radio exposition, their follow up single "Celle que je suis" (The girl I am, French cover of Brooke Hogan's "Everything To Me") and their album flopped. The Diadems disbanded in July 2004.

While the whereabouts of Marylore and Angel' are unknown, rumours say that Pookie is working on an R&B album project and that Alexandra is working on an album project too.

Ophélie - now known as Ophélie Cassy - released a single called "In nome dell Amore" (In the name of love) in duo with the Italian singer Paolo Meneguzzi that topped at the 10th rank of the French charts. Rumours say she's now working on her solo album too.

title: Diadems


text:
.gm

.gm is the country code top-level domain (CCTLD) of The Gambia.

Second-level domains
Registrations are taken directly at the second level, or at the third level beneath the following second level names.

A subregistry * .gov.gm for government entities is delegated to the Ministry of Communication, Information & IT (MoICI).

A subregistry * .edu.gm for educational institutions and resources is delegated to the University of The Gambia (UTG).

title: .gm


text:
User:Smackfu

Homepage

title: User:Smackfu


text:
User:Alejandro Matos~enwiki

HI! I'm peruvian, right now I'm living in Helsinki. I love movies...and off course: Friends.

Here you can see some pics of my and my friends.

title: User:Alejandro Matos~enwiki


text:
Drakkar

Drakkar may refer to:
 * Drakkar Entertainment
 * Drakkar Productions, a French underground black metal record label
 * Baie-Comeau Drakkar, a junior ice hockey team
 * Drakkar Noir, a line of men's cologne marketed by Guy Laroche
 * Drakkar (band), an early-1970s Cambodian hard rock band
 * Drakkar Sauna, a country-folk band from Lawrence, Kansas
 * Drakkar, the name of the building in which 58 French paratroopers were killed in the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing
 * Drakkar, a Viking longship

title: Drakkar


text:
User:Space Cadet/Image gallery

Photos
{|
 * [[Image:Saski_Park.JPG|thumb|180px|left|Park Saski in spring]]
 * [[Image:Chocianów, rynek.jpg|thumb|180px|left|Warsaw Old Town Market]]
 * [[Image:Syrenka.JPG|thumb|180px|left|Warsaw Old Town Market with the Mermaid]]
 * [[Image:UE_Nie.JPG|thumb|180px|left|UE protesters in spring 2003]]
 * [[Image:Unknown_Soldier_front.JPG|thumb|180px|left|Tomb of Unknown Soldier]]
 * [[Image:Naczelnik.JPG|thumb|180px|left|Jozef Pilsudski]]
 * [[Image:Riders_on_the_Storm.JPG|thumb|180px|left|Gorczewska street in rain]]
 * Oberschlesien uncut.PNG
 * Graves of January Uprising veterans.jpg
 * Oberschlesien uncut.PNG
 * Graves of January Uprising veterans.jpg

title: User:Space Cadet/Image gallery


text:
Zărnești

Zărnești (Molkendorf, Zernescht; Zernest) is a town in Brașov County, Transylvania, Romania, with a population of 21,624 as of 2021. It administers one village, Tohanu Nou (Neu-Tohan; Újtohán).

The town is located near the Piatra Craiului Mountains, which are part of the Southern Carpathians mountain range. Its close proximity to these mountains make it a common start point for tourists and hikers wishing to explore the Piatra Craiului National Park.

History
During the Roman period, soldiers of the Legio XIII Gemina were buried in the territory that is modern day Zărnești. It is first mentioned in the year 1373 under the name Zârna and also referred to as "possessio regalis Zerne" in 1395. Other names that appeared after 1437 are Zerna, Villa Czerne, and Zernyest.

Modern day Zărnești developed in the same location as the historic one. The commune of Tohan, which is now part of the town, was first mentioned in the year 1294, and remains among the oldest settlements in Romanian which have kept their name and location unchanged.

In the 1690 Battle of Zernest, Ottoman ally Imre Thököly (in cooperation with Wallachian Voivode Constantin Brâncoveanu) defeated Habsburg forces, which enabled him to become Prince of Transylvania for a short time.

Due to the topographical diversity of Zărnești and surrounding area, agriculture became the primary occupation for its residents until not too long ago. Industrialization began sometime in the 1800s, with the construction of the paper manufacturing plant in 1852, then called Celuloza, now called Celohart – EcoPaper" ), and the weapons plant "6 Martie" in 1936. These projects turned Zărnești from a predominantly rural to an urban town.

In December 1939, disaster hit the town as 24 tons of chlorine gas were spilled, killing 60 people, even at considerable distance from the plant where a storage vessel failed.

The town of Zărnești developed largely in the communist era, bringing its population to 25,000 people, which contributed to the addition of a few neighborhoods of communist era blocs. In 1951, Zărnești was declared a town, of which Tohanul Vechi (Old Tohan) became a part of. In 1968, the commune of Tohanul Nou (New Tohan) was included in Zărnești proper. After the Romanian Revolution of 1989, the industrial plants closed, only to be sold piece by piece to private buyers.

Currently, Zărnești enjoys a spike in tourism, relieving some of the pressure of unemployment which followed the revolution.

Name
The Romanian name "Zărnești" is a derivation from zârnă (Black Nightshade ), a word of Slavic origin (from Old Church Slavonic зрьно, grain) and suffix -ești.

Climate
Zărnești has a warm-summer humid continental climate (Dfb in the Köppen climate classification).

Notable people

 * Ioan Bran de Lemény, lawyer, revolutionary, and Transylvania's first Romanian civil servant
 * Gheorghe Crăciun, writer and translator
 * Eduard-Michael Grosu, professional racing cyclist, born in Zărnești
 * Alexandru Ilie, professional footballer
 * Ioan Mețianu, cleric of the Romanian Orthodox Church
 * Traian Moșoiu, World War I general, born in Tohanul Nou
 * Ion Monea, boxing champion, born in Tohanul Vechi

title: Zărnești


text:
Kissimmee City Street Railway

The Kissimmee City Street Railway Company was incorporated by Florida state law chapter 3659, approved February 12, 1885. It was established to create and run public transport using street railroads. The law stated "beginning at such place, within the town of Kissimmee City, as the said company, by its President and Board of Directors, may determine, running thence through and on such streets and highways within said town, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of said Kissimmee City may determine." It was created as owned by John M. Bryan, C. A Carson, M. C. Osborne, John M. Lee, Andrew J. Rose, L. P. Hughey, W. A. Patrick, N. C. Bryan, T. A. Bass, E. N. Fell, and W. B. M. Davidson.

title: Kissimmee City Street Railway