Talk:George Friedman

external links

The issues about the interviews, etc seems a bit like mr. friedman has tagged this article with links to his own view. It seems a bit POV. The article should either cite them as his opinion or merely give info to who he is. Citing all his works go beyond the scope. Lihaas (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how an external link is a conflict of interest. Others may freely post links to dispute these links. Please elaborate. Thank you. Briantx90 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)BrianTX90

An external link would be a conflict of interest if it had been placed by the individual who is the subject of the article or one of his agents to sell his services. Having just watched him respond to a pointed and intelligent question from an audience member at a function broadcast on C-Span with a crude and ignorant response, that combined with his no less crude prognostications which he is selling as unconventional wisdom backing the same old hackneyed viewpoints about american exceptionalism and how various corporate interest can win a game that history is moving beyond, I can see how such marketing and hucksterism could occur. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Should say however, that assuming the content was otherwise within wiki rules, I know of no reason a particular link which is not obvious advertising should be a problem, regardless of who places it. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NO "Center for Geopolitical Studies"

A search of the LSU website reveals NO results for "Center for Geopolitical Studies". SalineBrain (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No relations to Milton, right?

Just wondering.... Children of the dragon (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible libel: "toilet trader"

"George Friedman is an American political scientist and alleged toilet trader."

"Toilet trader" is, evidently, slang for someone who has sex in public bathrooms. I think citation is needed AND that kind of slang feels too much like a slam rather than a reference. 99.248.226.19 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The allegation certainly has all the characteristics of a slam – would it not mean the contortionist not only has his foot in his mouth but also his member up his own rectum (And could that kind of toilet trade be described as "insider dealing"?)

Adding "citation needed" tag

This whole article sounds like it was written by the subject himself or his PR person.

Anyway, I've added "citation needed" to this sentence: "During this time, he also regularly briefed senior commanders in the armed services as well as the Office of Net Assessments, SHAPE Technical Center, the U.S. Army War College, National Defense University and the RAND Corporation, on security and national defense matters." Call me a skeptic, but why on earth would "senior commanders in the armed services", etc. etc. want "briefings" "on security and national defense matters" from some guy whose only claim to fame is getting a PhD and then teaching at a college? RenniePet (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Resignation following "Global Intelligence Files" release by Wikileaks

This article is locked, but someone should consider adding information about his resignation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/27/wikileaks-tightens-ties-to-anonymous-in-leak-of-stratfor-emails/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.225.81 (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur. If the information is correct and he has indeed resigned, the article should mention it. 194.166.33.101 (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't locked, it's only "semi-protected". I think that anyone with a Wikipedia account can edit it - but I'm not sure about that, maybe your account needs a bit of history with Wikipedia. I was able to edit the article OK yesterday, and I'm just an ordinary Wikipedia user with no special privileges.

As for George Friedman resigning, it's not certain that that is true: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/wikileaks-publishes-security-think-tank-emails/110198/

And an off-topic comment: They really are "clueless about security" as apparently stated by Anonymous back in December. I'd never heard of Stratfor before yesterday, when I found a link to them on a financial blog. After looking at their website I was sufficiently curious that I came to this Wikipedia article, and made my contribution. But then I signed up for their "free weekly email report", and discovered that they don't even require confirmation from the person who signs up! This has been standard procedure for email newsletters for the last 15 years or so, that when you subscribe to a mailing list you have to confirm that you really have subscribed, otherwise malicious persons can spam your email by signing you up for all sorts of things. But they don't do that, you can just enter anybody's email address on Statfor's website, and bang, they are subscribed. Really dumb.

RenniePet (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of link to deleted Geopolitical Futures article

User DGG deleted the article and removed the link to Geopolitical Futures citing "cleanup; remove emphasis on his new project that is not yet notable". I don't understand this. The company was announced today. George Friedman has left Stratfor after 20 years and started a new intelligence forecasting company. Is that not notable? And if not "yet" so, how long do we wait until the creation of a stub article is deemed notable?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Friedman. 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/20120907235210/http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/18335-1/George+Friedman.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/18335-1/George+Friedman.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The book - the Next 100 yrs - published 2008/9 - wanting interaction re same - Now I am an old duck - no influence anywhere - but have questions - I am IT stupid - & as far as I can see you have provided NO avenue for folk wanting to ask questions,

As per Subject Heading above - Too much stuff to fill in for oldies IT illiterate! - Either you are interested in accepting comments/queries from real folk who are trying to understand or You Do Not Care A Hoot! ...... Stop wondering why older & perhaps more experienced folk are tuning out - It's just too difficult. Perhaps your idea is to block out comments from those who have experience ... too much conmen sense! The older I get - the less I feel my descendants will have access to real history as opposed to fairy tales! Doubt you will reply to me on jenanlozlittl@gmail.com ..... Real Folk Do Not Count! I Challenge You - Reply or Not ....... J Little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.101.36 (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)