This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh 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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
What's up with your heavy-handed edit summaries, demanding that other editors not change your edits, SlimVirgin. There were no square brackets in the Guardian article. To place them here implies Aziz said "eoples" thereby insinuating he is a poor speaker of English. The Guardian quoted him saying "People". Placing square brackets in the word to accomodate a concatentation of his quote places your personal editorial preferances above factual representation. It is not that hard to simply write the sentence accurately. I suggest you adopt a more collaborative attitude that respects sources who might not agree with your point of view. Sandagrila20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Square brackets around a lower-case letter indicate that the word was the first word of the sentence in the original but has been changed to be part of a sentence when quoted. Please do not remove them again. SlimVirgin(talk)20:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP who has been adding SPEAK's claims to this page. We have a strict policy that information my by reliably sourced, particularly on articles about living people. SPEAK is not a reliable source for anything other that SPEAK. Therefore their website cannot be used as a source in any article other than their own. They are particularly unsuitable for this page, since they are unashamedly forthright about their animosity towards Aziz. And their opinion, thoughts or "information" about Aziz's research animals is completely unreliable. Please stop adding material sourced to SPEAK, or any other non-reliable source, to this article. Thanks. Rockpocket23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the content under ‘research controversy’ was referenced to the ‘Oxford Student’ the SPEAK website was only included because there is no other online copy of the article. However as you may have noted the printed article was referenced. The information relating to the alleged disposal of Felix was relevant because SPEAKS ‘Fighting for Felix’ campaign is referenced in the page and it is incomplete without saying they now think Felix is dead.81.102.158.182 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could you provide the date and issue of the Oxford Student article, please? I can't find any reference to it except on SPEAK's site, (which, as we have already established, is not reliable).
The details of SPEAK's ‘Fighting for Felix’ campaign can be discussed at the SPEAK article. It is barely notable enough to be even mentioned here, but their opinion on specific aspects of Aziz's research is entirely non-notable. I could just as easily create a website and give my opinion on the welfare of his animals, or what I think of the name he gives them. Rockpocket01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
