This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
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
This so-called "controversy" is spurious. It given undue weight here, since the Trust funds thousands and thousands of research projects that get picked up by the press but only this one is mentioned. It seems to boil down to a mistake by someone in the Indian Government who, presumably, mistook the Trust for a pharmaceutical company. The section is now turning into a coatrack for examination of the links between pharma funding of research. That may be appropriate on pages about the pharaceutical company or the individuals involved. But hardly appropriate for a charitable trust that has been incorrectly identified. I propose the entire section is removed as non-notable fluff. And, to delcare my own COI: I - like many other researchers - receive research funding from the Wellcome Trust, but not by any pharmaceutical companies. Rockpocket10:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and - in the absence of any comments to suggest it is anything other than a red herring - I have deleted the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughbl (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit I removed a large amount of material taken from the Wellcome Trust website. I've subsequently discovered that this material is actually licensed under a CC-BY license (see here). If we want to use this material, we still need to provide attribution to the Wellcome Trust, which has not been done so far. Any ideas on what the best way to do this is? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One solution is to add an OTRS ticket template to the top of this talk page saying that some of the text has been taking from their website and giving the recommended attribution. If you email, say, infowikimedia.org.uk pointing to the relevant source page and where it is used in the article, I can arrange it this way and the ticket remains as verifiable evidence on file even if the article changes radically later on. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion