# Talk:RTI International

Agreed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlesslywaiting (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) 

I did a quick pass to fix overt puffery issues and copyrighted material copy/pasted from their corporate website. A single purpose account removed this text saying it was untrue and unverified:
Many workers in the non-profit organization find themselves being overwhelmed by large amounts of excess work and tasks. A widely read newspaper issue in West Raleigh had released a false statement stating the negative doings of RTI. When asked to comment on the article's contents, RTI spokesperson had given no accurate comments.
They must be referring to WRAL.com, but I didn't find anything, so maybe it was a good deletion. There appears to be plenty of reliable sources for anyone who wants to dig them up. Corporate 02:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to offer a revised version of the article for Wikipedia's consideration on RTI's behalf (see below). I've spent a lot of time on it and appreciate your consideration of my work. I believe it is a substantial improvement over the current article. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple areas where my conflict of interest is most relevant include the shooting in Iraq in 2007 (included) and the issue of figuring out which notable projects to include and to what extent. A neutral editor may feel the Notable projects section is too long (making it promotional) or too short. I roughly used profile stories like this one as a guide for which to include. A lot of positive stories were excluded,[1][2][3][4][5] but so were some of their more controversial projects.[6][7] It's also documented in secondary sources that the dollar coin made under RTI's recommendations was poorly received, while two treatments developed by RTI scientists, camptothecin and Taxol, became very successful commercial drugs and the EGRA reading assessment program became widely used in more than 50 countries. I didn't include outcomes of specific projects (positive or negative) due the pressing need for brevity in an ocean of verifiable information about their work. That section requires a lot of editorial judgements and I hope I made the right ones, but trust the community's judgement. 
PS - by chance I have edited this article in the past on a volunteer basis. CorporateM (Talk) 20:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is much improved.  That first photo is great!  And I think you made a good selection of projects, but another basis for considering would be whether they have WP articles (or should have them). As usual, I think I can condense some of the language. If there is no objection, I'll move it to replace the present article in a day or two.   DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! I would like to commend CorporateM for their upfront way of dealing with this. This is the proper way to act when one has a COI. The talk page is provided for just this sort of article improvement, and I hope CorporateM continues to provide suggestions and links. This added material will no doubt provide more for other editors to work with, and some of the links which have not been included may end up being used. We'll see. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now moved it. I'll do some copyediting later.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. I'll wait for your copy edits, then see what kind of feedback we get from a GA bid. I'll help wherever I can if you have suggestions as well.  CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:RTI International/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Three images used: File:RTP planning.jpg & File:RTI scientists.jpg have OTRS-certified permission; File:Rti-logo.png claims fair use.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Questions and comments
1a. Numerous instances of unclear prose. I'll provide details after further review to determine whether it is worth going on at this point.
I get dinged on prose a lot. Interested in your feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 19:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The writing seems to make assumptions, which I'm sure seem natural/obvious to the writer but the reader doesn't make the necessary connection. For example, several sentences in the "Projects" section list the findings of studies...so...what does that have to do with RTI? and some could use a better explanation on why they're "notable". Taxol/Camptothecin seems like a big deal, mind elaborating on how RTI came about to doing that one? I think that entire section could be better organized thematically, rather than chronological, but I'm not making that a condition of GA. maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
How's this? I re-organized it to be by-topic and added (hopefully non-promotionally) information on why the projects were significant, as well as some more explanation in certain areas and other copyedits. 

That sounds good. Add it in, lose the "Notable" in the title, and let me do some copy-edits regarding the prose and this should be done soon. maclean (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
1b. The lead section needs to be expanded, per WP:LEAD it should "summarize the body of the article"; per word choice lose the "notable" (see WP:PEA section).
 Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
3a. From the brief background readings I've been doing while checking sources, I'm not convinced the topic is being adequately covered. I will provide a more detailed response to this after doing some more research.
Sure thing. One thing you might bump into is their history is very intertwined with RTP and the research triangle (two larger topics where more detail is available in secondary sources). There may be a lot of detail missing, that is not necessarily relevant to RTI specifically. For example, I only covered their pre-history of coming out of the RTP project very briefly, but more detail on that probably belongs on the RTP page. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't get much of a chance to look at it today. I was thinking more along the lines of expanding the "Organization" section. An organization of 3700 employees with $735 mill in revenue should probably elaborate beyond a one paragraph note that they have a board of governors, they're headquartered in RTP and their biggest client is USAID. Can you look into finding something along the lines of their organization beyond the board level, like how they are distributed across the country/world, how they bring in and distribute funds, publish their work, partnerships, use (selling) of patents, etc.?  maclean (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
How about something like this? It does add a few primary sources, which I have done in other GANs for similar content, but I am a bit more timid adding primary sources where I have a COI, so wanted to swing it by you. CorporateM (Talk) 20:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That is better. However, I must push for more detail. Example locations of other offices, do they have a specific purpose (or for general office functions)?, does "research contracts" mean from private business contracting them to do research?, why not list all eleven primary service areas if that is how they organize themselves? I'm comparing the breadth of this WP article with this magazine article here maclean (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for all your help/feedback. Let me know if you think it needs more. I'll get started on the Notable projects next and will take you up on your suggestion to organize it by topic.  CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
6a. Was File:Rti-logo.png actually obtained from RTI International? or was it obtained from a website for which a link can be provided?
The file was provided directly by RTI, but there is a similar image in the upper-left-hand corner of the website. CorporateM (Talk) 15:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hold. There is indeed additional information in the sources for the "Organization" and "History" sections. I will put the review 'on hold' and re-assess later based on your response. maclean (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion
This meets the GA criteria as detailed above. Thank you for your participation. I encourage you to continue improving the article in terms of comprehensiveness. It has a long and detailed history which is outlined here but could be expanded upon. Good luck in your future article-writing. maclean (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much!! CorporateM (Talk) 05:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm using this space to store new sources as they come up that may be worth including in the page. CorporateM (Talk) 01:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Lewontin, Max (October 22, 2014). "What Really Happens at Community Colleges? A Tool Taps Data for Answers". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved November 13, 2014.

I am a new Wikipedia editor but I made this account when I noticed this page. I encountered the name RTI when reading "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein. Here is what she writes, regarding the privatization of nearly every "reconstruction" project in post-invasion Iraq:
"Even the job of building 'local democracy' was privatized, given to
the North Carolina-based Research Triangle Institute in a contract
worth up to $466 million, though it's not at all clear what qualified
RTI to bring democracy to a Muslim country. The leadership of the
company's Iraq operation was dominated by high-level Mormons - people
like James Mayfield, who told his mission back in Houston that he
thought Muslims could be persuaded to embrace the Book of Mormon as
compatible with the teachings of the prophet Muhammad. In an e-mail
home, he imagiend that Iraqis would erect a statue to him as their
'founder of democracy'."
There is a note that goes on: "In fact, RTI was driven out of the country after it helped block local Islamic parties from democratically taking power in several cities and towns."
She cites among other articles/online sources:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XW8qAAAAIBAJ&sjid=E1MEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3726%2C202624
I would think this would raise a red flag: RTI should probably not be described in glowing terms in a Wikipedia article written by an RTI employee... A slightly more balanced viewpoint is needed on a company that apparently took part in the legendarily corrupt "reconstruction" effort in Iraq. Currently, the 2007 shooting is buried so deeply in a list of RTI's accomplishments that anyone who came to Wikipedia to learn about RTI's performance in their single biggest and most controversial contract to date would probably scroll right through the article and shrug their shoulders. I don't feel qualified to decide what should happen to the article, but I hope that some more experienced editors will at least take a look at it and prevent RTI from using Wikipedia for whitewashing.
Thanks.
- exit8  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit8 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) 
Klein writes further:
"In the province of Taji, RTI, the Mormon-dominated contractor tasked with building local government, dismantled the council that local people had elected months before it arrived and insisted on starting from scratch." (The Shock Doctrine, p. 460)
Exit8 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest enough to create an account. I hope you decide to stay and contribute to some articles. I reviewed this article for Ga-class (see above section). Meeting WP:NPOV is one of the criteria and I found, at that time, that the article met that criteria. The NPOV tag is cause to review it at WP:GAR if you wish to nominate it. I disagree with the NPOV conclusion. What are the glowing terms you see? And regarding the 2007 shooting, explicitly stating and referencing the incident is not whitewashing. The solution is to edit the article to expand upon RTI's role in Iraq, including Klein's criticism, rather than tag it as NPOV. You are just as qualified as any of us to edit the article. maclean (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Creating a new section seems reasonable... It's still hard to see the point of view of the article as "neutral"... certainly including fluffy elements like "RTI operates according to a social responsibility policy" seems to create an unnecessary tone... and it seems like RTI's research accomplishments were considered notable while most criticisms were not...  I will create a new section if I find time, in the meantime in case anyone else has the time/interest, here are some examples of commentary/information on RTI's conduct in Iraq, outside of Klein's criticism:
→On $185,000 cash lost by RTI being replaced by taxpayers:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27313639/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-taxpayers-foot-tab-when-cash-lost/#.VIfQF3uupv4
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-10-22-iraq-lostcash_N.htm
→On RTI's inability to usefully implement their 100+ million dollar reconstruction contract
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11402
http://www.merip.org/mer/mer234/faded-dreams-contracted-democracy
→On RTI's poor reporting on their project costs, activities, and achievements (see page 90)
http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/cwc/20110929221553/http://www.wartimecontracting.gov/docs/CWC_Interim_Report_At_What_Cost_06-10-09.pdf 
Exit8 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence about corporate social responsibility, which was cited to a primary source and was in-fact fluff. The Associated Press is certainly a Wikipedia-compliant credible source, but the others look like reposts of the same article, advocacy sources and other political riff-raff. It takes a special degree of care to find genuinely reliable sources, when it comes to highly charged political topics, as they are usually surrounded by misinformation spread to advocate a political point-of-view.
In general, in a Notable works-type section, the material is usually highly summarized, meaning we don't go into depth about each major project, because it would quickly overwhelm the page. You'll notice that most of their notable projects have only 1-2 sentences and Iraq already has 3, which is more than most. Creating a dedicated section for any single project, positive or negative, would become significantly undue weight. CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Exit8: Thank you for bringing this up. Are you satisfied with the remedy implemented by CorporateM or do you have further concerns about the content? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't really understand the implied definition of "genuinely reliable sources" in what CorporateM wrote above. CorpWatch might be considered non-neutral for some things, but is the suggestion that the interviews with former RTI employees, who are named in the article, are not verifiable? Or the interviews in MERIP with current and former, named, RTI employees? The other source I listed is a report by a Congress-appointed review Commission. The fact that this is a highly charged political topic is kind of my point - to answer your question Frog I still think an explicit mention of criticism surrounding RTI's execution of its Iraq contract is merited; although I could also see just a separate paragraph as sufficient... Here's another extensively researched article outlining, in highly critical fashion, RTI's activity in Iraq: http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/silent-battalions-of-democracy-by-herbert-docena/ Exit8 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia defines a reliable source as being one that has a reputation for fact-checking. For example, the source you just listed above has the slogan "A community of people committed to social change" and the author is listed as a "user" of the site (a member of the community). A quick Google search reveals the author is a student[8]. In comparison, The New York Times has a much stronger reputation for fact-checking than crowd-sourced articles on a forum/community site. If there was political manipulation scheme going on related to such a high profile event as the US presence in Iraq, we would pretty much expect it to be in a lot of mainstream papers and not just crowd-sourced Wikis and community sites. CorporateM (Talk) 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it makes sense to extend a verifiability standard in that way, especially when the claims in these articles are really not that sensational. "If x were going on, we'd expect to see it in the NYT." That seems to incorporate a lot of personal bias into the equation. Only things that you personally found surprising would be subjected to that standard. Are there specific facts cited in the articles (or the book quote) that you reasonably believe to be manufactured? We can write a new paragraph without citing unattributed statements of opinion from CorpWatch or Naomi Klein, which should clear up most of your concerns. The article from Zcomm, by the way, was previously published in MERIP, the online text is on Zcomm. Here's a rough first draft of what could become a new paragraph on RTI in Iraq/RTI + USAID. I will wait for input from CorporateM/others before posting:
RTI has worked with the US Agency for International Development since 1983. In 2003, RTI was the sole bidder on a $168 million contract with USAID to "create and train local governing councils across post-Saddam Iraq", the organization's biggest contract to date. Both RTI and USAID have drawn criticism over the nature and execution of the contract from critics of the Iraq Reconstruction project such as Naomi Klein , and corporate watchdog groups. RTI lacked any previous experience in Iraq, and the project was criticized by RTI employees and observers as unrealistic and undemocratic in nature, , . In 2004 RTI employees "physically lost" $185,481 and then billed USAID to replace the lost cash. Between 2003 and 2012, USAID awarded RTI over $1.8 billion in development contracts, which contracts accounted for over 75% of the organization's revenue from 2009-2012. Since 2003 RTI has hired at least five former USAID employees to executive positions   . In December of 2014 RTI announced that it had been awarded a 5-year USAID contract worth up to $650 million to "improve urban and local governance in 112 countries in key functional areas including public service delivery, accountability, climate change management, and urban finance." 
Exit8 (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A lot of these sources are political-advocacy type sources. The Washington Examiner advocates for right-wing politics and is a borderline conspiracy theory publication "dedicated to exposing facts about crooked politicians... and others who would prefer to keep you in the dark". 2 cites are from RTI.org, which are primary sources, whereas Wikipedia relies on independent secondary sources for most things. the Associated Press on the other hand is a very acceptable source. Not sure about MERIP; its self-description makes it sound reliable, but the article itself has the tone of advocacy. As a niche source, there are no discussions available at the reliable sources noticeboard.
Typically in a "Notable Works" type section we just briefly summarize the org's most significant project's in this case over a 60-year history. As 35% of their work over almost 10 years, Iraq is about 4% of RTI's work over their entire history. Any one of these projects could be expanded into a paragraph using weaker or niche sources, but the section is intended to be a summary. I think it would be best if we found some other editors to chime in and get other opinions CorporateM (Talk) 16:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Understood that these sources are not the New York Times or the Associated Press. But the facts we're talking about here are not particularly controversial and these sources seem reliable on those subjects. Is the verifiability standard designed to throw out all  sources but the major news outlets entirely? All sources that engage in advocacy of some kind? As for notability within the context of RTI, the projects and facts cited above would be notable not only because of the chunk of RTI's work they make up, but because they illustrate a character of the organization's work (and some of the attention that character has drawn) that is not illustrated by the other notable works mentioned. They provide a more complete picture of what RTI has done/does. Other people chiming in is welcome, not sure how that happens  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit8 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I might suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion. The way this works is an editor posts a fresh discussion string sort of like the one I've put in collapsed text below, then lists the discussion on the Third Opinion page requesting an un-involved editor chime in. If you'd like to go that route and the post collapsed below looks fine to you, I can set it up for us. CorporateM (Talk) 02:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Having read "Third Opinion", posting the dispute there seems premature. What I proposed was a rough first draft and we haven't talked much about the specific facts. Here are some problems I'd have with your version: The first sentence, in the way it's structured, seems to imply that RTI did not work with USAID prior to 2003. "to help rebuild" is not a very neutral or useful description of RTI's job there, and we might as well be specific since the specifics are out there. Re: the shooting, I'm not sure where the word "accidentally" comes from, the material in the source could certainly be more accurately summarized. Re: the money, "A billing dispute arose" seems to unnecessarily obscure the content of the story. RTI employees lost the cash, and RTI and billed USAID for it, and received the money plus a fee, and then it was disputed later. Lastly, you don't seem to think that more general criticism of RTI's work in Iraq and their relationship with USAID is notable. It has been discussed pointedly in multiple books including an international bestseller, and reported on by various journalists at several news outlets. It is part of a much wider and undeniably notable body of criticism on the Iraq reconstruction and USAID in general, and it provides a point of view on RTI's work that is not represented in the article otherwise. If you're uncomfortable with how I summarized that criticism above, I think you should suggest an alternate summary, which does include sourcing to a representative sample of the criticism. Exit8 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Breaking this up:
"The first sentence, in the way it's structured, seems to imply that RTI did not work with USAID prior to 2003."
 Done see revised draft below. I moved "in Iraq" to the beginning of the sentence. I did not actually realize they had done prior work for them.  CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"to help rebuild" is not a very neutral or useful description of RTI's job there, and we might as well be specific since the specifics are out there.
The source says "teams guided Iraqis learning to govern themselves" Do you have any really strong sources that are more specific?
"I'm not sure where the word "accidentally" comes from"
 Done Removed from revised draft below. Confirmed the source does not specifically say by accident. CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
"Re: the money, "A billing dispute arose" seems to unnecessarily obscure the content of the story. RTI employees lost the cash, and RTI and billed USAID for it, and received the money plus a fee, and then it was disputed later."
I thought the money was stolen by Iraqis from a location RTI evacuated. Do I not have that right? Then RTI tried to bill the government for it as an operational expense (probably something they should have had insurance for if operating in a war-zone). Maybe you can propose some specific text suggestions?
"Lastly, you don't seem to think that more general criticism of RTI's work in Iraq and their relationship with USAID is notable."
Not from the sources you've provided. The only source that might pass muster is this MERP thing. I'm not sure about it because its own description of its editorial mission sounds on-target, but the article reads like advocacy. It might be worthwhile to send it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to see if anyone knows more about it. Do you have any stronger sources for this like The New York Times, Associated Press, profile stories on RTI that include it among their summary of their notable works (this last example of being included in profile stories on the organization is the most significant criterion I use for inclusion in these types of sections). CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

RE: The missing cash, I think that if you read the article, you will have a clear idea of what I mean, and see that my summary above is accurate.
RE: The description of the Iraq project, I did provide a more accurate description of the project, and cited the MERIP article, which I think is fine, since I don't share your urgency in avoiding that (and so many other) sources.
RE: The sources in general. Mainstream news sources have mentioned broader problems with RTI's Iraq contracts (some self-criticism from US government sources is mentioned in the AP article about the missing money). The NYT published this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/world/middleeast/14reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0 summarizing the failures of the reconstruction effort; the article doesn't mention RTI but they also published the SIGIR report along with it: http://documents.nytimes.com/hard-lessons-the-iraq-reconstruction-experience which discusses in detail the lack of accountability in RTI's contract. However, I think your rejection of the other sources I've provided, and that I'd like to link to in the article, is arbitrary. Sometimes, notable information does not happen to be published, for any number of reasons, by any of the major news corporations, and a collection of smaller sources, even ones that do not claim the same degree of objectivity as the NYT, can be useful for providing that information in an encyclopedia like this. For example, we'd hardly expect the Triangle Business Journal to be impartial on all political subjects; but we can still use it as a source for lots of things, as you've done elsewhere in the article. The fact that you see certain facts, as reported in the sources I cited, as "political fodder" or "political riff-raff" tells us more about your personal views/interests than it does about whether the material meets an objective verifiability standard.
At this point, I'd agree that a 3rd Point of View would be useful, and I'd rather that it was presented as a dispute over whether it's appropriate to make mention of the more general criticism of RTI's work in Iraq and with USAID, and whether it's appropriate to cite some source that represents an example of that criticism. (as opposed to a direct comparison of our drafts) Unfortunately, I will have greatly reduced internet access and free time in the coming days/weeks, so I won't be able to contribute frequently to that dispute.
Exit8 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This New York Times article is indeed reliable, but does not appear to mention RTI? Saying that there are notable events that are just not published about is the opposite of Wikipedia's definition of notability, where inclusion is based on the significance granted by published credible, independent sources. Using weaker sources for trivial facts is very different than using advocacy sources for accusations of corruption on a politically charged topic. Lets get a third opinion after you're back. I'd prefer you propose the exact text of the 3PO. I wouldn't worry to much about the "dispute" wording as it is not intended to suggest the discussion is contentious. CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote above, "the article doesn't mention RTI but they also published the SIGIR report along with it: http://documents.nytimes.com/hard-lessons-the-iraq-reconstruction-experience which discusses in detail the lack of accountability in RTI's contract." Again, I feel that you're applying a particularly strict notability (or verifiability? can't really tell which) standard here; and basically suggesting that nothing but the AP and the NYT could be cited on this topic. How about the following for a 3pov dispute wording:
"Does the more general published criticism surrounding RTI's work in Iraq merit mention in the RTI International article? Or should mention of RTI's problems in Iraq be limited to the 2007 shooting and the $185,000 in lost cash?" Exit8 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me give this one more crack at a draft before I leave the country; that way if you like this you can just plug it in to the article, and/or anyone else interested who comes along can take it up:
"In the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, RTI was awarded about $450 million in contracts by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to work on local governance projects in the occupied country. RTI's work in Iraq was criticized as anti-democratic and ineffectual by journalists and scholars critical of the Iraq reconstruction program.During the project, a security contractor shot and killed two innocent Iraqi women in 2007, and RTI employees lost $185,000 during an evacuation, which the company then billed to USAID as an expense. In 2008, the New York Times published a US Government report that detailed problems rife within Iraq reconstruction contracts, including a lack of accountability and realistic expectations within the RTI contract work."
I've cited a more directly relevant AP story on the subject of the shooting, which also happens to have accurate descriptions of the size and nature of the contracts. I've cited a scholarly article (I've linked above, in my original draft, to an accessible online version; not sure whether it's better to link to Jstor or Google Books) and the Klein book for examples of criticism; obviously there's plenty out there but these are probably the most notable sources. If you'd prefer a major online magazine to an international bestselling book Klein could be cited here: . If anything were to be cut out, I'd say the shooting should be. I would suggest a separate line or paragraph after this that mentions how much USAID makes up of RTI's budget.Exit8 (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The following URL you provided above: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3993711?sid=21105015008411&uid=2&uid=2129&uid=3739800&uid=4&uid=70&uid=3739256 is not working for me, so I'm not sure what it is. This document is a primary source, however doing a quick Google search for some of the terms there[9] I found this book, which is written by an academic (very reliable) and covers RTI's work in Iraq in substantial depth. It's accessible through Google Books here. I haven't read it yet, but it may contain what you're looking for. CorporateM (Talk) 15:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The original report is a primary source. It's a primary source that a very reliable secondary source, the NYT, decided was notable enough to publish in its entirety, with an accompanying article summarizing the contents and directing readers to the material. The book you linked to, I have also seen, and it would I'm sure be a good source, but key pages aren't available through the Google Books preview. The JSTOR link is to an article published in Third World Quarterly. I'm not sure why it doesn't work for you, works fine for me when I copy-paste it into my browser from your above post. The text, as I said earlier, I had already linked to, above, on Google Books, where it is available in a book that it was also published in called "Reconstructing Post-Saddam Iraq". https://books.google.com/books?id=vk7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=whither+iraq+tareq&source=bl&ots=M_M1Ylfqck&sig=7buRV4qkWGPyiVuaSCZFwFXyj6c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eZ6tVLyANMm9eNz3gtAM&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false There is the Google Books link again. The essay is called "Whither Iraq? Beyond Saddam, sanctions, and occupation." Maybe this link will work better for JStor - http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993711 I'm off! Could be a few months before I come back to this. Wow it's hard to get stuff on Wikipedia. Exit8 (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just ordered a used copy of the book on Amazon. I'll take a look at the full-text when it arrives in the mail. Since you'll be out for a few months, I'll just go ahead set some kind of neutral thing up, while you're out. I might go a step further and do a Request for Comment, to make sure there is a clear consensus for whatever the outcome is and avoid any remote appearance of taking advantage of your absence. Have a good trip!  CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


### References
}

I've checked the article for neutrality and reviewed the above talk page discussions.  Because it is a good article and has already been reviewed for NPOV, before tagging it, any editor should leave specific comments here regarding what the NPOV problems are listing sentences of sections that should be improved.  Reliable sources need to be brought forth, as DGG suggests above.  Rather than citing a politically oriented rewriting of the news, just cite the underlying news source.  Keep in mind the requirements ofread  WP:UNDUE. 
Any COI of editors involved in writing this are not justification to tag for NPOV.  COI is a sign that an article should be checked for NPOV, but the tag should only be applied if problems are discovered that cannot be corrected directly, and we need to warn editors reading the article that fixes are "in the works".  Questions?  Please ask, and welcome to new editors who were participating above. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have read both proposed versions and don't like either one of them really. Exit8, I have not read the Klein book, although I know the author name. In fact, I'd consider her a fairly good example of a journalist-advocate, and to be clear, I don't particularly have an issue with such, since they are often quite correct. And also sometimes though only correct as far as they go...I personally think that Bremer totally mishandled the whole initiative, but we are dealing here with what one company did. And, incidentally, the federal government itself does not seem to think that RTI mishandled the money: http://www.contractormisconduct.org/index.cfm/. I still have not found an account of what exactly happened to it though, and it may simply be that there was so MUCH ineptitude,,,anyway. What, may I ask, is the significance of the security contractor shooting those women? I ask this realizing that the significance was huge for those women and their families, but what was it exactly that you thinkthat RTI did wrong in that situation? Fortress mentality? This was pretty much the problem with the whole war...
I am still not sure what I think about weight, but let's see if I can explain the reliable source thing. It does frustrate a lot of new editors. There must be a formal editorial policy and a definite system of quality control. Blogs are generally considered self-published and not reliable because of the lack of editorial review. (For example - I realize your sources are not really blogs.) An exception would be the blog of an acknowledged expert, but this gets tricky. Some sites like the Washington Post are reliable but also have associated blogs. Is the blog of a reporter who, say, covers housing reliable when the topic is housing? Maybe, maybe. And ok, so what if the topic is Banksy? Surveillance cameras? Encapsulation algorithms? A lot depends on what fact the particular reference is supporting and if someone wants to be technical any blog is borderlire. I once had trouble with an open letter -- on his blog -- by one of the authors of the BIND protocol on the subject of the behavior of the BIND protocol. But CorporateM does seem to be so far at least operating in good faith, even though he also does seem to have some affiliation with RTI or desire to protect it for whatever reason. But he needs to understand that a source does not need to be a published book or the New York Times to be reliable either. It does need to be specific to the material. Even if it's something you'd cite for a PhD thesis, it's still not reliable necessarily if it's about something completely different and your footnote is for a five-word sentence on page 784, because if your fact is that small a detail in the scope of that book who knows how well it was checked? So both the books you guys are citing are, I think, reliable as wikipedia uses the term, but neutrality and general reputation still come into deciding whether it's a "good" source. I'd say use the Klein book for facts if you can't verify them elsewhere, but be very wary of citing her for conclusions. I actually suspect she is correct but a true believer and a passionate advocate is always in danger of missing inconvenient detail. CorporateM, haven't looked at your book, but I am certain it cites reports correctly. Need a closer look if you are going to use it for conclusions. Klein I am somewhat familiar with already. Jehochman, article seems ok for neutrality as far as it goes but the protest here is that important information is being omitted. I do agree that the Iraq reconstruction was a big deal and if it was 35% of company revenue then it's a material part of a company profile Elinruby (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Naomi Klein is in herself notable -- why not simply document and attribute her contention that RTI was one of many US contractors whose behavor had problems x y and z? I realize that this solution will probably please no-one, but this is true of many compromises. Just a thought. Elinruby (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 Would this image be useful for the "Operations" section? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 18:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Added. Altamel (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have only checked one, but #20 https://www.rti.org/annual_reports/2012/rti_ar_2012.pdf no longer leads to the annual review of 2012. It leads to the abyss. Okay, it leads to nothing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.154.51.250 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC) 

I work in marketing at RTI International. Although this page was brought up to Good Article status some years ago, it has since become out-dated. I would like to propose some edits indicated here [10] that would:

Remove many primary and bizjournal.com sources, as well as uncited information
Correct outdated information
Improve general copyediting
The proposed changes are numerous but mostly mundane. I have highlighted two portions where my conflict of interest is more relevant, because I am proposing the removal of unsourced criticism, in order to draw attention to them.
Thank you in advance for taking a look and providing any feedback on the changes! 
pinging @DGG: and @Maclean25: who reviewed an earlier rev and did a good article review respectively
Mzap RTI (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented the mundane quality, copyediting, and updating improvements, but left the uncited criticisms alone. This way it's easier for an editor to look at just the content where my conflict of interest is most relevant. I will start a separate discussion string on those so it is easier for an independent editor to review. Mzap RTI (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

To avoid the potential appearance or accusation of impropriety, I would like to request an independent editor consider deleting the following content:  "RTI staff are not independent researchers, but are instead compensated for their time as salary in exchange for yielding any scientific interests in external publications and extramural funding. RTI competes with the three universities that form the research triangle and other research institutes for contracts... While RTI is technically a non-profit research institute, senior employees are rewarded salary bonuses (4% for senior staff, and 9-15% for managers) based on annual performance and corporate profit. However, employees have no current vested interest or role in corporate governance."  This material has no citations and appears to rely on personal opinion. Mzap RTI (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I have removed the content. If anyone wishes to put it back, they should find a reliable source that directly supports the claims. Mzap RTI, thank you for bringing this up on the talk page and asking an uninvolved editor to look at it rather than making the change yourself. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I work for RTI. Per WP:COI, I would like to request an impartial editor consider the following changes to the page: 

1. End of Organization Section

Explanation: This is uncited personal opinion. Similar content was previously removed by @Guy Macon: (now retired) but keeps coming back.

2. Middle of Organization Section

Explanation: The way RTI categorizes its practice areas changes frequently. This cites RTI's website, which listed 11, then 8, and now 12 practice areas. I think the list of practice areas should be trimmed, as it doesn't make sense for Wikipedia to maintain a duplicate of the RTI website's frequently-changing list. In the alternate, I can assist with updating the list again.

3. Review
Many years ago an RTI employee made numerous edits after nobody responded on Talk. These edits look good to me, because they reduce the page's reliance on RTI's website and bizjournals.com citations, while also updating numerous items like the number of employees, etc. However, I wanted to point it out here to invite scrutiny, in case any editors feel some of those changes should be reverted back.
AMCliff (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC) AMCliff (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done and thank you for flagging the old edits. Rusalkii (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I work for RTI. In compliance with WP:COI, I wanted to request an impartial editor consider the following trims: 

1. Lead

Explanation: This is repeated in the body of the page where it is cited to an article from 2011 (13 years ago now). I think it's fine in the History section, but not in the intro where it is presented as current information.

2. Last Paragraph of Organization Section

Explanation: This is all cited to pages on RTI's own website from 5+ years ago (there is one citation to a press article, but most of the information in that sentence is in the RTI website citation next to it, not the press article). This caught my attention because the information is out-dated and changes substantially from year-to-year, especially as RTI embraces more remote work. However, rather than update it, I think it's more compliant with Wikipedia's rules to trim it, since it's most of an entire paragraph just cited to RTI's own website.
Thanks in advance for taking a look and let me know if there's anything I can do to be helpful. AMCliff (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Yes, agreed 100% and now updated accordingly. Thank you for following the COI edit request process. Axad12 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Poorly chosen management for the LGP project (Excluding the COP who is now deceased) lead to significant personell loss in 2008, as well as their compound being repossesed by the Iraqi Army. 121.99.196.196 (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My name is Alisa Clifford and I work for RTI International. An anonymous IP editor recently added "their chosen security provider URG was not without controversy" in the sentence about RTI's work in Iraq. Double negatives aside, no citation was added to support this statement. I'd like to request the edit be reverted, based on Wikipedia's basic policies that content be cited and not be based on personal political opinions. Pinging @Rusalkii: and @Axad12: who helped with prior requests (but may or may not choose to continue helping as explained on Rusalkii's user page). AMCliff (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. As you say, it is unsourced, plus I don't see the relevance. (I'm not sure what a PRT is either.) LizardJr8 (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The very first sentence of the page says ", trading as[2] RTI International,". This phrase makes it sound like RTI is a public company "trading" on public markets under the ticker "RTI International". The cited source is RTI Website's "About Us" page, which explains in a legal disclaimer in the bottom right footer in small font that "Research Triangle Institute" is the organization's legal name, but "RTI International" is the "trade name". You can see on the Wikipedia page for trade names that this essentially means the organization's WP:COMMONNAME, as opposed to its legal name.
I suggest the first phrase be reworked to "RTI International (also known as Research Triangle Institute)" so that the common name is first, then the legal name in parentheses, without making it sounds like people are "trading" shares. AMCliff (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at this and thinking it might be more of a varieties of English issue because it's phrasing that's not used as much in the United States. It also is problematic for a nonprofit organization. I've changed it to "operating as", which has similar connotations without the ENGVAR issue or the implication that it is a company. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)