Talk:SAE International

Untitled

The SAE changed their procedures recently causing a big stir, especially when it comes to horsepower in cars. --BillyTFried 19:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

SAE100: This is the third time you have removed material about the DRM controversy from the article without explanation. If you do not think this should be in the article, please explain why, either here or in the edit summary. Thank you Blackeagle 16:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

J2534 missing

"J2534 is an interface standard designed by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and mandated by the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) for vehicle ECU reprogramming." please see http://www.boschdiagnostics.com/testequipment/diagnostics/j2534/Pages/J2534FAQs.aspx --213.164.89.130 (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference Missing

Citation given as "MIT Libraries news release" has no details, and link goes to unrelated blog post. Oswald Glinkmeyer (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is incorrect can someone help?

The Society of Automotive Engineers officially changed their name in 2006 to SAE International. They did this to better reflect the diversity of engineering professional invovled with the organization (aerospace, commercial vehicle). Somehow the SAE International page redirects to Society of Automotive Engineers this should be reversed and this page should redirect to SAE International. Can someone help with this? Mestok (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Pending Update 08-14-2012

Hello All, I will be updating this page in stages. First will come a timeline of SAE history, then a rephrasing with more direct language and citations of the "History" section, followed by general cleaning of the language in subsequent sections. To that end I propose general article order improvements.

I propose adding:

List of Publications, titles and years

List of Awards, Titles and years, expandable with descriptions if desired, though that may be a candidate for a sub article

Timeline as mentioned, is in progress. Current version can be seen on my sandbox: User:JoBaWik/sandbox

Other Proposed Improvements:
Publications - add list of publications suggested above, provide history/use/content description and readership levels, or other information demonstrating significance. Perhaps awards? A number of current SAE publications have won national design awards in the last few months. Link 1 Link 2

Mention of DRM removal and MIT cancellation - this seems odd by itself; I'd like to make it a part of a larger section, such as publishing methods or technologies SAE uses. Preferably also, provide greater context for DRM in technical publishing, with links to other articles. Or include in the below:

Controversy section- No organization lasting 100 years gets by without controversy. Possibly build out the DRM issue here, also add information for the electric vehicle fast-charging standard competition/conflict currently underway (CHAdeMO vs SAE J1772 rev 2012) Link

Encouraging Students.... - The title seems too specific. What about surrounding it with a description of the non-profit's goals and what they are doing to achieve them? Or further details on the SAE foundation?

Events, conference, meetings and symposia - Propose rename to "Meetings and Conferences". Meetings for inward facing activities, Conferences for outward facing activities. The subtleties of conferences v symposia and events v conferences v meetings are likely lost on readers, and are not explained in the section.

Improve Article Organization - Currently, SAE activity is haphazardly described without clear priority. Standards, one of the major roles of the SDO just sort of appears. By word count, it has less significance than the efforts to educate children - which are themselves likely less of a focus then other aspects of SAE. Further, this entire article is running perilously close to just what SAE is, without explaining why it is important nor what it has impacted throughout its time.

Standards call outs - Examples of and links to explanations of relevant standards, some of which already exist, could help explain what the organization does. Examples that exist: SAE J1772, SAE J2452, SAE J1269, SAE JA1002, J1939, J1708, J1587, J1922, ARP4754, ARP4761, AS5678 as well as redirects from SAE 841, SAE 1075, and SAE 660. Many of these are stubs or orphans, and could be improved with cross linking. Categorization of these and ISO, IEEE, and other standards as "Standards" could similarly help tie them together for context and cross explanation. Also help deal with the Article Organization issue.

In comparisons with literature on their site, much of this article is ripped nearly directly. I aim to fix that. Suggestions and assistance would be appreciated.

NOTE: I am affiliated with SAE. I aim to further Wikimedia's GLAM initiative; SAE is the Archive I have connections with. So, I'm starting there. If you have concerns about COI, let me know and I'll do what I can to provide my rationale. JoBaWik (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline added 8-30-2012

Howdy, The timeline is up. Any thoughts on its location in the article? Size, formatting? It seems to take up an awful lot of space. JoBaWik (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Section Organization

I'm thinking we organize the first part of the article as follow:

• Introduction
• Mission statement and goals
• History (with timeline as a side column)

~Rest of article~

Rationale: If this is an article about the organization, it makes sense (to me) to say what it is before going into where it came from or what it used to be. Any thoughts?

The mission statement and goals would be brief, quoted from their website, a-la

SAE International states that its mission is to advance "...self-propelled vehicle and system knowledge in a neutral forum for the benefit of society." Its goals are to:

• Connect a global network of students, engineers, practitioners, and companies
• Attract, manage, and distribute mobility-related information through education, standards, and technical publications
• Lead in global standardization
• Create and sustain beneficial affiliations that encourage innovation and help form sound public policy.

Does anyone have a better way to represent what the organization is now without just modifying what they themselves wrote? Even with my edits it feels... promotional. JoBaWik (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

SAE standard infobox

{{SAE standard
 |     id = ARP4754A
 |  title = Guidelines For Development Of Civil Aircraft and Systems 
 |   date = December 2010
 | author = SAE International
}}

I have been missing a template like this for SAE standards articles. I drew this from the {{RTCA standard}}. The colors I picked from the SAE website. While black might be a good and natural color for the font in the top two cells, I incidentally chose white because the SAE website uses white even on the light blue backgrounds. IveGoneAway (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Conflict of Interest

A heads up to future editors - user BethanyKate1980 made edits exclusively to this article, and the username is awfully similar to a current SAE employee in the marketing department. Watch their edits for possible conflicts of interest. At the time I created the Timeline section I was also an employee of SAE, creating the timeline as my contribution to the GLAM initiative (as noted in my original comments). My additions made the company aware of this article. Because of that earlier affiliation, I am hesitant to make judgement calls- it's conflict of interest. JoBaWik (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid template removed

I have examined the edits by User:Bethanykate1980, and none of them are promotional in nature. As such, I have removed the {{Undisclosed paid}} template from the article (diff), because the article does not require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies relative to these edits. I have added the {{Connected contributor (paid)}} template atop this talk page (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• These edits were not promotional in nature, and simply involved edits to the company logo in the infobox: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff,
• Content added in this edit was later removed from the article. Same for this edit.
• These edits simply added internal links, and are not promotional: diff, diff, diff
• Additional edits that are not promotional: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff.

• You're not examining the correct one, I'm referring to this in which they have been warned, and they have been warned at their relevant articles nominated for AfD, yet they continued. As by our Terms of Use, the undisclosed paid template must be restored since the relevant user was clearly an undisclosed user, regardless if they never openly stated it, since that's exactly what undisclosed paid editing would be. Whenever a user is seen adding the same type of company information to different articles, we know that's a paid editor or a PR agent, because it sure isn't an coincidential employee of all companies. In fact, Bethanykate1980 never actually disclosed as their contributions show, and they surely never mentioned who their client was, so redefining the template to include them but no stated employer, is equally a violation and is being misinterpreted. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• Your theory about User:Riptide360 being a paid editor is based upon conjecture, speculation and circumstantial evidence. It is quite possible that the user is not a paid user, hence no explanation from them stating such.

Furthermore, content the user has added is not promotional in nature (diff, diff), is neutrally worded, and fact-based. As such, the article does not require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies relative to these edits. I have removed the template from the article (diff). You can add the Connected contributor (paid) template atop this talk page, but I recommend that you ask the user first if they have been paid for any editing they have performed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

the ed. is either a paid editor who is also doing very good volunteer work, or a volunteer editor who took 2 or 3 paid jobs, or a volunteer who chanced upon 2 or 2 unlikely topics. It is wildly unlkiely that they wee paid to add material to this article by the SAE. I do not see dealing with him as one of our priorities. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)