Talk:Stryker Corporation

message: Is the military vehicle really the primary topic for "Stryker"? I was surprised when I landed there while looking for the this Fortune 500 company -- I expected to land either here (because I thought this was likely to be the primary topic) or at Stryker (disambiguation). When I google "Stryker", the topmost search result and most of the first-page results concern the company, which lends weight to the hypothesis that the company is the primary topic. Even if this isn't considered to be the primary topic, perhaps Stryker should be moved to Stryker (vehicle) and then Stryker should become a redirect to the dab? I've started similar conversations at both Talk:Stryker (disambiguation) and Talk:Stryker and would appreciate the thoughts and comments of other editors about this. Lambtron (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, but it seems like I'm late to the party on this discussion... Roberticus (talk) 13:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary topic? 

message: For a while this sentence read:
*
Then a some IP editors changed it to:
*
On , 108.29.72.13 left this edit summary 
Putting aside that the linked item was not included as a citation and that it appears to be an an editorial, let's look at the following citation that is in the Yale Scool of Management citation. 
* 
I think that we can conclude that neither "the international community" nor "other Western-based corporations" is accurate.
*Those "continuing business-as-usual in Russia" include companies from China, the European Union, India, Japan, Switzerland, Thailand, UAE, & the US.
*Those "postponing future planned investment/development/marketing while continuing substantive business" include companies from Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, UAE, & the US.
*Those "that are scaling back some significant business operations but continuing some others" include companies from China, the European Union, India, Israel, Japan, Switzerland, UAE, the UK, & the US.
*Those that have suspended "most or nearly all operations while keeping return options open" include countries from Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, the UK, & the US.
*Those that have totally halted or completely withdrawn from Russia include companies from Canada, the European Union, India, Japan, Panama, Switzerland, the UK, & the US.
I do not think that we can consider China, India, Japan, Singapore, or South Korea as part of "Western-based corporations", so that language needs to be removed. Referring to the companies as "the international community" is inaccurate, too, as each category has companies from across the globe. I am going to change the text to say  I think this accurately represents the Yale School of Management assessment. Peaceray (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how this document from the Yale School of Management is a WP:RS. I think the appropriate guidelines are under WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It seems to be a primary source, basically a data dump of a survey. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." This survey fails that test. This seems more like a preprint, which under WP:RS "are not reliable sources." It also seems like a blog, which are also not reliable sources. Furthermore, under WP:WEIGHT it seems to violate WP:UNDUE, since no other source has published this material. They are making or implying a controversial proposition, that companies should stop sending medical devices to a country which is at war with another country. I don't see anyone else making that argument. I think the section should be deleted. Is there any argument for keeping it in? --Nbauman (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the international community" ''versus'' "other Western-based corporations" 

message: I suggest you read Stryker's 10-K form for an organized, detailed discussion of their business. 
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/310764/000031076422000028/syk-20211231.htm Nbauman (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-K Form