Talk:Stratfor

message: The (current) second reference link, http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=CIA, doesn't work. It was a reference for the fact that the CIA is one of Stratfor's customers. If anyone could find evidence for that, it would be helpful. Worldthoughts 20:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken Link

message: I removed the statement that Stratfor's reports are generally well-received by its audience.
This statement is somewhat unverifiable.  Presumably, Stratfor would keep its client list confidential, so it is not really possible to have a completely independent analysis of customer opinions. Such a survey would need to be conducted by Stratfor itself, and then Stratfor would need to place those results here, which wouldn't be allowed because it would amount to original research.  Therefore, the statement is essentially unverifiable and should probably be left out of the article until a reliable source for such a statement exists.
A second reason for removing the statement is that it's somewhat unnecessary to begin with.  Most of Stratfor's products are sold to clients.  If the reports were not well-received by the audience, they would likely stop paying for them.  The fact that Stratfor continues to function as a business implies that their products are well-received by their clients.  However, I think that this sort of deduction does not, in and of itself, justify such a statement in the article, because it amounts to speculation.
Therefore, because the statement is somewhat unverifiable, somewhat unnecessary, and amounts to speculation, I have removed it from the article.   Cheers  --DavidGC 00:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-Received by Its Audience 

message: "At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, STRATFOR made its "breaking news" paragraphs, as well as some notable analyses predicting likely actions to be taken by al-Qaeda and the Bush administration, available freely to the public."
Maybe I'm just not reading it right but I can't figure out what this sentence means. Whose breaking news paragraph's did they make? Did they 'make' them as in 'get coverage' or did they create them. If the former, that's a weasel word and should be substituted.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite clear to me, maybe you just need to read it again. The word "made" here is part of the phrase "made available freely to the public". It's saying that they made something available, not that they made (as in manufactured) something.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.247.254 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct. It is a grammatical and meaningful sentence (unlike some I have seen in Wikipedia). If you have difficulty understanding it, try diagramming it, as was taught in school. ---Dagme (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence 

message: The reference number 6 (pastebin), last retrieved on 24th december, doesn't exist anymore. (the server says "unknown pastebin id")  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.16.121.217 (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. Pastebin shouldn't be cited anyway, not a reliable source. Equazcion (talk) 14:20, 29 Feb 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Reference 

message: There should be at least a discussion--if not a section--on the accuracy of their reports. Old copies of Stratfor reports will make compliling this section easier. I could only find reports dating back to may 2011. Paramecium13 (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing old reports to these emails would probably constitute original research. A section on accuracy does seem appropriate but it would have to be based on external coverage of that topic in reliable sources. Equazcion (talk) 23:42, 29 Feb 2012 (UTC)

text: Correction, I thought I was commenting on the email leak. Still, the same holds true for writing about the accuracy of their reports in general. There would need to be talk of it in external sources. Equazcion (talk) 23:45, 29 Feb 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: In the last citation under "2012 Leak" it says, "The Guardian referred to the first published leaks of Stratfor material as peering in to an 'intelligence-industrial complex'." 
Shouldn't we clarify that this is a commentary article written by Amy Goodman and not necessarily the views of the Guardian?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorwegianNotepad (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing the Guardian for Amy Goodman  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Stratfor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111226005704/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203479104577120530217909036.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203479104577120530217909036.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111226005704/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203479104577120530217909036.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203479104577120530217909036.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stratfor. 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/20110601025407/http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=13032 to http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=13032
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) 22:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I ran a CTRL+F of the page and there are no mentions of geopolitical author Peter Zeihan. As the company has the staff to keep this page tidy for them, perhaps his departure was less amicable than it appears?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.65 (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A semi-famous former employee of Stratfor goes unmentioned. 

message: I'm not really sure if it's Strategic Forecasting Inc. or Strategic Enterprises LLC. Does anyone knows? PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of company