Talk:Royal United Services Institute

Talk

Large sections look like they are lifted from[1] and nee rewriting. Alci12 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What about non-fellows?

I am not a fellow, so would not apply to me. I would therefore oppose the merge.--mrg3105mrg3105 08:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

von Clausewitz name-check

The reference to von Clausewitz seems somewhat gratuitous, given that there is no other mention of him, nor is there any mention of RUSI - even in an "influence on" way - on his own page. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Partisan lobby group

The article gives the wrong impression which is very much in line with the way RUSI sees itself: to quote from its website, "The Royal United Services Institute is an independent, non-partisan Institute; a think tank dealing with all aspects of global defence and security." It is actually a partisan lobby group promoting NATO views and analysis. I suggest there should at least be a section written from a critical point of view.92.23.35.206 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I came here to find out about RUSI because I saw one of its employees pontificating about the Russia-Ukraine conflict on YouTube and he seemed very partisan and anti-Russian. I suspected it was a NATO mouthpiece but when I read the article I felt like I learned nothing as it seemed like a promotional blog. Now I have read what you wrote and my instinct has been verified. Someone with better knowledge than I needs to fix the article. SanVitores (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Honesty and balance in funding section

I removed a bunch of content saying how it was core-funded by people and how it is a charity etc. Considering [this and this, it is obvious that they get plenty of money from governments around the world as well as huge corporations. Presenting this organization as neutral and a charity and 4-star anything is utterly dishonest. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Update to RUSI Associate Fellows

• We would like to update the line "RUSI currently also has fifty Associate Fellows and twelve Fellows FRUSI." to read "RUSI currently has 225 Fellows" :
• This is as the organisation has increased the number of our Associate, Senior Associate and Distinguished Fellows and can be founded listed on our website
• :

JackHRUSI (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: I deleted this as unreferenced. Also recommending these facts are sourced appropriately, as well as accompanied by a date, otherwise they are not verifiable. The source you provided is the directory itself, which would mean that if the membership numbers fluctuate, it would instantly lose its accuracy, not to mention that as an encyclopedia we would have to be constantly manually adding individual members to be able to support such a statement. PK650 (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Is RUSI a WP:Reliable source?

Does anyone know if Wikipedia considers RUSI a reliable source (RS)? In other words, can RUSI publications be cited in Wikipedia articles (like here)?  selfworm^Talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to know their reliability.. they're being cited in this story currently:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/captured-russian-documents-reveal-plan-to-subjugate-ukraine-in-10-days-and-kill-population/ss-AA1506kN?ocid=wn_startbrowsing&cvid=8743a5ef839d43099491a6731f717637#image=3 DKEdwards (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)