Talk:RTI International

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed draft 

message: 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, but so were some of their more controversial projects. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I have now moved it. I'll do some copyediting later.  DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notes/comments regarding this draft 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Storage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question for editors/Suggestion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some reference links no longer current 

message: 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  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  and  who reviewed an earlier rev and did a good article review respectively
Mzap RTI (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed Updates  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Note for Editor