Talk:Royal United Services Institute

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. RUSI org (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Royal United Services Institute (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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

I am not a fellow, so would not apply to me. I would therefore oppose the merge.--

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

• 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
• ^[1]:

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

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]