Talk:Human Frontier Science Program

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.hfsp.org/. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2010031210044807. Licensing is granted for content already imported into the article as of this version. It does not extend to importing additional content, which would require a separate licensing statement.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

Permission

It has come to my attention that the Wikipedia page about the Human Frontier Science Program has been annotated as having a copyright problem.

Although we have not specifically stated that our copyright complies with CC-BY-SA, we hereby grant permission for any text used on the site www.hfsp.org to be used in the Wikipedia article under the CC-BY-SA terms.

Please remove the copyright problem box from the page and reinstate the original text.

Please confirm when this has been done.

Thank you

Martin Reddington

Martin Reddington, PhD Director of Scientific Affairs and Communications Human Frontier Science Program <contact details redacted> Reddingtonm (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

The multiple www.nature.com references are not really suitable as you need to make a payment to view them? Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The need to pay for references is a good point but for most people interested in the HFSP, they will have access to the articles via their universities' subscriptions. I don't know of any equivalent Open Access sources, especially for the historical information, which appeared in Nature before the start of the Open Access movement. These remain the best external sources about HFSP even if access is restricted.

Reddingtonm (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as always, there is no requirement that all references be online references, convenient though it may be. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Handled wikify needed

I added more wikilinks and removed wikify from the issues list. If there are those who think it is still underwikified, let me know.Naraht (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still under wikified, but also think that it probably needs hacking back as well...there is too much unencyclopedic marketing puffery, as is to be expected from a copy and paste job. Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding in a few more. Seemed like the change that was easiest to do and least likely to get reverted by the original editor (note, I originally wrote "original owner", which I still think it feels like. I really wonder if the original editor ever read WP:OWN.)Naraht (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]