Talk:Haas Automation

why ?
I do not understand the "this article is no good" banner or the "low importance" tag. Perhaps it was written by someone close to the company, but it does not grovel at the feet of Haas Automation. The statements are accurate, not overly adulatory, not full of marketing hyperbole .. in a word, realistic. What do you want ? A statement by their competitors that they are worthless buffoons ?

As far as "low importance", well ... they may not be *the* largest machine tool builder in the world but they are certainly in the top few. They are definitely the largest machine tool builder in the United States. If that is not important, but articles about some garage band that played a cover of Lemon Tree Very Pretty at Mitzi's fifth birthday party merit in-depth coverage, well ... what can I say ? They make machines, they make their own controls, they have a decent reputation and a large market share and this article is unbiased. I don't see the problem.

I am not connected to Haas, by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, you're not the only one with a common-sense view on this. I agree completely. The people who plaster banners all over Wikipedia articles, even in instances where they are rather ridiculously overblown, get a certain satisfaction out of doing so, and it often doesn't quite rise to the threshold that you can argue with them about it ... you could try to cut back the exaggerated distortion (which, by the way, would preserve or enhance the value of the banners for those instances where they are more accurately appropriate—no one listens to an alarm when it goes off constantly, neither centuries ago nor today), but then they can just whine that you are pushing POV or COI, that you are against quality and morality, that you are part of the problem. After reflecting on it, I realized that a lot of people can get a cheap satisfaction out of it, because of the following. It takes a lot of time and effort to really read, write, reread, and rewrite Wikipedia content to make it really good (complete, NPOV, pedagogically valuable, free of COI, well referenced, well polished, spotless, awesome ...). You can blow hours on it, just working on a certain topic, and still not reach perfection. Meanwhile, you can drive by, slap a banner on a page because "it would be nice if this were better"—which is all that any of those banners amount to, in a critical analysis—but you don't have to be the sucker who spends his own time making it better. You get to pride yourself on being some kind of champion of quality and righteousness, while not bothering to help fix the problems. Tastes great, fewer calories. Pretty great, huh? The same type of person will take 10 seconds to delete some half-decent content that someone else spent hours working on, because it could be better. Maybe what they should be doing instead is working to improve it rather than deleting it like an unhelpful asshole, but what's the personal fun and satisfaction in that? Where's the cheap high? You get to think you look smart (like you know exactly what's wrong with the content and what one should do to fix it), but you don't have to prove it by doing this work that is supposedly so obvious and trivial to your giant brain. And you can always argue, "well, that onus is on the person who wrote it, not me." But this attitude is willfully blind to the obvious fact that a half-decent Wikipedia article that a reader can learn something from is better than a stub that teaches nothing to anybody. End of rant. Cheers to people who actually contribute. — ¾-10 20:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction was this article includes a lot of irrelevant information, and does in fact read like it was written by the company. I then noticed the banner at the top of the page. For example, certification are not normally relevant or included in encyclopedia articles and should be removed. They are used as selling tools and give little insight to the company itself. 86.177.91.239 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Update Haas Automation faces allegations that they violated US Sanctions
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-company-accused-of-violating-sanctions-doing-business-with-russian-arms-industry

Note this report is currently showing allegations as of this time let's hope the investigation holds up once more reporters joins in and report it. Let's hope further investigation prove and disprove this preliminary report2601:640:C682:8870:8973:A2A2:DDAC:D71 (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This information should be added to the article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.si.com/fannation/racing/f1briefings/news/haas-f1-team-fans-in-outrage-after-damaging-rumours-plague-social-media-lm22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C682:8870:A45C:1F27:9F2E:AFB9 (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/russia-haas-f1-sanctions-report-denial-d133a37811a973bcf2a68bac57ac0737

Here is more fallout on Haas Automation responds to the allegations over its connections to Russia when it's related to their Formula One team.2601:640:C682:8870:A45C:1F27:9F2E:AFB9 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

HAAS Certification
Im planning on adding in the HAAS Certification program into the term. When people look up HAAS automation them knowing that they can learn about how to mill and lathe could be useful information especially for those that have an interest in engineering. Im planning on just going over the two different types of exams and how they are categorized by chapter. Nothing too in depth. NlghtBlade (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This need reliable sources and Wikipedia is not a guide. Please review and consider condensing what you have added so far before it is entirely deleted by an editor as it appears to lack notability. 〜  Adflatuss  •  talk  20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)