Talk:RTI International

Proposed draft
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)

This version of the article can now be seen here

Notes/comments regarding this draft
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)
 * 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)

Storage
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)



Conflict of Interest Here Probably More Significant than Realized
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)


 * Thank you for bringing this up. Are you satisfied with the remedy implemented by or do you have further concerns about the content? § FreeRangeFrog  croak 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. 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 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)

What is the proper weight and NPOV description of RTI's work in Iraq?
 * (a) RTI started working with the US Agency for International Development (USAID) after the conflict between Iraq and the US began in 2003 in order to help rebuild. USAID would become responsible for 35 percent of RTI's revenue by 2010. During the project, a security contractor accidentally shot and killed two innocent Iraqi women in 2007 and a billing dispute arose over $185,481 that was lost during an evacuation.


 * (b)"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." "

References


 * 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."
 * ✅ 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"
 * ✅ 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)

RTI began working in Iraq for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2003. It  USAID would become responsible for 35 percent of RTI's revenue by 2010. During the project, a security contractor shot and killed two innocent Iraqi women in 2007 and a billing dispute arose over $185,481 that was lost during an evacuation.


 * 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 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)

Request for comment
What is the most appropriate sourcing, weight and NPOV summary of RTI's work in Iraq. Please see options a, b and c at Talk:RTI_International/RFC 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we have some background to this question, please? What are the alternatives, if any? What have been the main problems so far that warrant a Request for Comment? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I brought this article up to the "Good Article" rank with a Conflict of Interest. Exit8 added an NPOV tag alleging that a lot of criticisms about RTI's work in Iraq were not included. I did my best to explain that things like CorpWatch, a student-written op-ed and primary sources cannot be used, however, there were some proper sources as well. The main differences between the drafts are:
 * Using hyper-critical source material from the Middle East Research and Information Project or more balanced-to-positive source material from this book by James D. Savage from the University of Virginia. (a reliable sources debate was archived without discussion at RSN)
 * Whether to include RTI's security contractor killing two innocent people and a budget dispute over $180,000, or if they are just news blips as oppose to major historical milestones
 * In general how long/detailed it should be.
 * I am seeking consensus, largely because I am not allowed to edit the article myself per WP:COI
 * CorporateM (Talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with either RTI or the Middle East Research and Information project. I take it you have some affiliation with RTI. What is the objection to the latter, apart from the fact that it is critical? Corpwatch occasionally has good information, but I have not seen enough of it to have an opinion at the moment on whether it is a reliable source. Books are generally considered reliable but in areas of breaking news online site are often where the information actually is. May I suggest that you have a look at the archives of the NPOV board and see if either of the sources you don't seem to think are reliable have in fact been addressed before? Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * CorpWatch can be found at RSN here from a discussion in 2009 between user:THF and user:Squidfryerchef. Although they said its use should be extremely limited, if at all, I'm surprised the discussion was not even more critical of a political advocacy source. The article in question is repeating what they were told from 3 ex-employees and a book written by an academic is a much more ideal source. Any kind of politics-related topic tends to be surrounded by political advocacy sources and while it could be argued that it's reliable for the size of budget or something else, I don't think it would make sense to say "according to CorpWatch, three ex-employees said the whole thing was a waste of money." CorporateM (Talk) 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many CorpWatch stories are politically oriented rewriting and summarizations of material from other publications, supplemented by some original research. Those other publications are often reliable, and can be used. The original sources are likely to have more NPOV language--and will in fact make a much stronger reference to support material on WP. (I have not looked at the specific instance here yet), Our article or Corp Watch is in my opinion somewhat promotional, and I placed a tag on it--it greatly needs rewriting. So does our article on Middle East Report -- it will help the use of these sources if we provide fuller information on them. I think the discussion on RSN may need to be repeated, because I think the publication is relatively responsible, the main problem is its choice of language, and, as CorporateM mentioned, its tendency to rely on individual quotations from people to make broad generalizations--but mainstream sources do just the same--it's a standard technique of journalism to cherry-pick quotations. An, with respect to balance, I need to point out that most US mainstream publications have a generally pro-business POV. They reflect the society in which they are written.     DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have done some copy editing to the article, mostly for passive tense and verb agreements; it had clearly been reworked several times. Pretty sure nobody is going to object to anything I did, although I did tone down a reference to "helping" China "control emissions" that I found a bit excessive. That particular detail needs a little more attention btw -- if the object was to improve air quality for the Olympics, well, this is laudable, but does not amount to helping the whole country "control emissions". And what's an air monitor that you train, by the way? Another mystery is the acronym with no prior reference that was involved in the school network.

But those are details; what I came here to say was that the one sentence about the shooting kind of sticks out like a sore thumb -- a very specific detail in the midst of a sea of "helping China" and "working with USAID" (to do what?). I don't have the time right now to make a proper judgement about this but I do offer my current thoughts: The reconstruction of Iraq was a big deal. It's the economy of a country and a huge chunk of the US budget. So some detail is merited. Surely it was not a total fiasco, and some positive things can also be said about this program if that is the concern? As to Corpwatch, I have never assessed it as a Wikipedia source so I dunno if it meets the editing criteria, for one thing, and I agree that it does at times not bother to hide its opinion. I have a vaguely positive impression of it though, as in, I believe that I came across it while researching something, and the facts themselves did check out. However, if it is true, as the other editor says, that it's like the Huffington Post, often a re-write of more mainstream publications, with some partisan language thrown in, then yes, by all means let us use those sources instead. However, I do not think that advocacy journalism in and of itself is necessarily an unreliable source. I know was involved in a major discussion about the Sunlight Foundation, which someone was trying to discredit, but just because it is against money in politics, does not mean that it is not in fact quite accurate on the subject of money in politics :) and sometimes the only source for a particular piece of information, like how much Senator so-and-so got from energy companies in his last campaign, which may well be relevant to his stance on energy issues, capice?

Oh and while I am opining, yes, Taxol is a big deal, and still in use today. Possibly that achievement should be expanded upon as well. Also while I am thinking of it, there was a slightly strange wording there -- some sum of money in annual sales by pharmaceutical companies. Not RTI companies? Is it generic now, is that what that was about? I left it alone but it might be good to clarify that because if I wondered probably someone else will too.

One last thought -- do we really care about the dates the various divisions were created?

If I get a chance or need to take another breather from what I am doing I may interest myself in this Iraq AID question, but I can't promise anything. Spent too much time on this tonight already ;) 50.193.53.99 (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sory, thought I was signed in. The above paragraphs are me Elinruby (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Elinruby Thanks for your great copyedits! I went through and removed/replaced dead links, answered some of your who/which annotations, etc. What do you think about the below?

"RTI began working for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in post-war Iraq in April 2003 to manage the Local Governance Program. RTI established neighborhood advisory councils, promoted local government an encouraged citizens to vote in the 2005 democratic election. After the election, RTI held workshops and trainings for newly elected Iraqis to develop budgeting and administrative skills through Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT). USAID work represented 35 percent of RTI's revenue by 2010. According to academic James D. Savage, a 2009 audit by the USAID Inspector General found RTI's program had greatly increased local Iraqi budgeting competence, but not management skills. The program experienced difficulties with the military's civilian security requirements and few of the staff had local cultural expertise. An employee of the contractor, Unity Resources Group, hired to protect RTI staff doing USAID work in Iraq shot and killed two Iraqi women on October 9, 2007."

CorporateM (Talk) 14:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Need to look some more and can't do enough right now to do it right. Would depend on the significance of that shooting (is that wht RTI had to evacuate or was it when they were evavuating, for example?). If the budget issues are correctly reported they might be significant, though I seem to recall that this was a problem with Iraq generally at that period as opposed to something specific to RTI. The reconstruction of Iraq has to be seen as a failure but afaik or can tell maybe RTI's woes there were more of a symptom, not sure. Need to actually read the prior drafts and maybe some background before I can made a sensible statement about NPOV. The shooting does seem very specific compared to the rest of the article but... ya. Yours does a pretty good good of finding some good things to say, I'll give you that. Is it neutral? Feels a bit sugarcoated. Will try to come back and discuss. Meanwhile, ya, I have had a look at CorpWatch and agree that the tone is a bit strident for wikipedia, I would not rule it out entirely, though; am just confirming that yes, I think that if you find a fact there, you should probably go back to *their* sources and find and cite it there.


 * On the other hand, based on the http://www.merip.org/writers-guidelines, that group *does* appear to meet the criteria for a reliable source and hmm, I see that the article is very critical, but are its facts wrong or do you just not like them is the question. And though I am not a fan of spinoff pages, if it's worth going into their role in Iraq if may be best as another page, with of course a link on this one. As a point of reference, how much space did Blackwater's problems get? Or, since they are primarily a security firm, maybe Halliburton is a better example, and huh, they don't do spinoff pages, just a "Controversies" section, which I dislike on principle. I mean, they have admitted they destroyed evidence, so how controversial is it, actually? Usually the case. I hate those sections... wikipedia should just call them "Bad Press" or the like, it's really what it is, the section where the unpalatable gets buried. Now is citing MERIP undue weight or NPOV? Gonna have to get back to that but I can tell you that if you take it to the noticeboards the first question will be what the actual text is. Corpwatch is blatantly anti enough to maybe not pass the NPOV test. Unless the facts are provably correct, in which case why do you need them?


 * And by the way, if there is concern about undue weight one solution is to add material to balance it. I have seen pages for brand-new start-ups that have more detail than the one for this company, that's been around for 50 years.Elinruby (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Of course the Iraq reconstruction effort is a big deal, involving $60 billion that was considered not to have been well-spent, but doing a little math, RTI seems to be responsible for about 1% of that spending and the budget appears to be somewhere between 1-5% of RTI's activities over its entire history. It is significant, but not so significant merely because it is a part of a larger event. Anyways, best for me to wait until you have time to take a closer look. Much of this discussion reasonably falls under WP:COIMICRO; Exit8's version here is enough for me to be concerned about RTI being represented fairly, but editors could reasonably argue about the exact weight and NPOV, whether to include the individual incidences, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 17:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that you're looking out for RTI. That's just fine as long as it's in the open. You might consider my comment that some of the accomplishments could be given more prominence, whereas I dunno if anyone really cares how many divisions RTI had in what year. Or maybe that's usual in these business profiles, not sure; I am usually over in high-tech or history or (today) city profiles. In any event, it's a suggestion. I agree that it's not balanced to summarize 50 years of corporate history in on section then devote a section the same size to problems with security contractor behavior. I hesitate because I think it was serious but so, to mention it again, is Taxol.Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
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)

Question for editors/Suggestion
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)

Image
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)

Some reference links no longer current
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)

Proposed Updates
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: 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.
 * Remove many primary and bizjournal.com sources, as well as uncited information
 * Correct outdated information
 * Improve general copyediting

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)


 * 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)

Note for Editor
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)