User talk:Rbogle

WikiProject Animal rights
Hi again, glad to see you joined the project. In case it's helpful, you can find a list of our animal rights articles in Category:Animal liberation movement, Category:Animal rights, Category:Animal Liberation Front, and Category:Animal experimentation. And to help you with the editing, you might find it useful to review the core content policies: WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

Enjoy. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just drafts from here down...

The Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WPRC), on the University of Wisconsin, Madison campus, is one of eight similarly designated federally-funded primate research centers.

According to the National Center for Research Resouces (NCRR), the division of the National Institutes of Health directly responsible for the national primate centers, WPRC has three areas of major emphasis:

Reproduction and Development

Stem cell biology, fertility regulation, embryonic differentiation and fetal development, maternal-fetal health, reproductive neuroendocrinology, polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, reproductive tract gene therapy.

Aging and Metabolic Diseases

Effects of food restriction on aging, obesity and appetite control, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, ocular aging, neurodegeneration, gene expression profiling, polycystic ovary syndrome, menopause, pathobiology of aging, Parkinson's disease.

Immunogenetics and Virology

Simian immunodeficiency virus, HIV vaccines, molecular MHC analysis and MHC-defined animals, cytotoxic T cells, viral transmission, pathogenesis, and escape.

WPRC reports on its website that approximately 250 scientists conduct research there and that the center has on hand, at any one time, approximately 1250 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), 230 common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus), 70 long-tailed, or crab-eating macaques (Macaca fascicularis), and 20 vervets (Chlorocebus aethiops).

Early history
The eraly history of WRPRC is intertwined with the history of the a national system of federally-funded primate research centers. In

Note in summary
Hi there, I'm a bit confused by your note in the edit summary. What do you find objectionable about my updates to the sections on the laws in Japan and France? I didn't discuss these beforehand since I didn't think anybody would find them objectionable. I agree that it is wise to discuss controversial changes in advance, but these didn't really seem to be much more than minor additions. All the best Tim Vickers 15:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I may have been less than clear. I don't know one speck about the Japanese or French laws. I was howling about the repeated rewording of the paragraph regarding Plous. Rbogle 03:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, no problem. I did rewrite that (very slightly diff) and added the original paper as an additional reference (which I read and found very interesting) If you would like, I could e-mail you the Pdf of the Science paper that the press release is based on, so you can read it as well and decide for yourself if the press release is entirely accurate. Just send me an e-mail through my user page if you'd like me to do that. All the best Tim Vickers 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the paper (more than) a few times. Every time it comes up someone (always someone vested in the system, wouldn't you know) claims it is flawed in some meaningful way or chooses to ignore the plain language. I go back and reread it; and every time I do, I am again struck by the straight forward conclusions and rather clear implications. I think, as I pointed out in the discussion, that the press release is an accurate representation of the paper.Rbogle 12:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find it rather disturbing reading myself, the US system seems a bit less-tightly regulated than the British one (which is more familiar to me). I'd be interested as well in seeing the results of a study where both sets of committees are blinded, as that would remove one of the major criticisms of the methods. Any ideas as to if that has ever been done? By the way, I've picked up a collection of Peter Singer's writings at the library this week, he's a very impressive thinker. Have you read much of his stuff? Tim Vickers 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read some of Singer's stuff and done a little research for him; his Companion to Ethics is, in my limited opinion, the all around best and broadest primer on the roots of philosophy and its modern expresion.
 * It isn't clear to me that the UK has much better of a system that the US given the results of the undercover investigations that have been made public. I suspect that the US system is slightly more transparent and due to the greater number of researchers here, the opportunity for embarrassing exposure is greater. I don't think that there has ever been much of an interest in validating the oversight system. I'm not aware of any studies other than Plous and the previous one they mention. Blinding the committees seems to miss the question of whether their personal association with those whose research they are supposed to be evaluating biases their decisions.Rbogle 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done some searching this might be useful. Tim Vickers 02:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's behind a password wall; I'll have to see whether I have this issue on my shelf. Also, see this, and this. Rbogle 21:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Animal treatment in rodeo
You don't know me but I'm 16 years old and writing the Animal treatment in rodeo article. One contributor who has given me something of a difficult time (yes, sometimes deserved) has suggested the article be deleted. It was the final blow, and I sent the article to AfD. I'm crying now. I spent so much time and love on the article. I notice you are a member of the animal rights project. Could you take some time and glance at the article? What have I done wrong? Make your recommendation to keep, delete, or merge. The article will be swamped with the rodeo crowd who have opposed the article from day one. I had great trouble finding high grade reliable secondary source material for the Pro-Rodeo stand and the article is top heavy with the animal rights/animal welfare stand. Of course, it should be deleted -- it's unbalanced. I'm so confused. Thank you! Buttermilk1950 (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Animal rights
You are receiving this semi-automated message because you are a participant of WikiProject Animal rights. If the project is not on your watchlist or you have not visited the WikiProject recently you will not be aware of some of the changes that I have made to the pages, or aware of an a issue that has been raised about my attempt to re-categorise some of the project related articles. Please revisit the project talk page to add your input. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)