User:Rockpocket/Scrapbook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Current use: Write an article for Sanjay Nigam.

Sanjay Nigam is an Indian born American scientist and novelist. He is currently Professor of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego where he conducts research into kidney development and physiology. He also holds the position of Writer-in-Residence in the Health Sciences, having published two critically acclaimed novels.

Contents

[edit] Background

Nigam was born in New Delhi, India [1] but was raised in Arizona, USA infant when his father moved to USA as postdoctoral researcher.

Ok, I've been following this for a few days now and I'm also happy that there is enough circumstantial evidence to cast doubt on the merits of the original block. There is still good policy reasons to maintain a block (i.e. for editing from a proxy alone), but common sense tells me that - if MiddleEastern's story is true and she will never use the proxy again - then that is a pretty weak basis for an indef block. There are a few things that still puzzle me though. Firstly how do we know Frogsprog isn't an Arabic and French speaker also? Second, there was a suggestion that the software MiddleEastern claims to use doesn't appear to exist. Can anyone resolve these?
That all said, i'm not content to over-rule Jayjg's actions without hearing his/her opinion first. So I would ask MiddleEastern for patience while this is resolved. I would also strongly encourage her to tone done the political rhetoric. It may well be that her aims are to promote neutrality here on WP, but signing "For Palestine" after every comment implies a very different agenda. Of course, we all have our biases and causes, and some people believe it is better to be open about them than hide them, but there is a difference between full disclosure and campigning. Finally, making grand demands for Jimbo's attention or Arbcom intervention is not going to help you. Please be aware that the few admins (myself included) that are following this situation are keen to see "justice being done". None of us are interested in blocking you as punishment or to "silence" you, so please work with us, have patience and we will get to the bottom of this. Thanks. Rockpocket 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] User:USERNAME

Ombudsman (talk • contribs) is under Arbitration Committee sanction of some sort. The final decision in their case is here: [2].

Ombudsman who has according to ArbCom "a long standing history of tendentious editing of medical articles" is prohibited from continuing to do so. After being alerted by the co-participant in his Arbcom case, he reverted, multiple times, sourced criticism of anti-psychiatrist Peter Breggin from Stephen Barrett. While other editors were engaging on the talk page in an attempt to reach consensus, Ombudsman took unilateral action with no justifucation. He removed talk page warnings and requests to collaborate. I believe this is sufficiently similar to the tendentious editing behaviour of his ArbCom case to deserve attention.

The following diffs show the offending behavior
  • ARTICLENAME, place diff here
Relate this diff to a finding of fact, principle, enforcement, or remedy listed in the Final Decision
  • ARTICLENAME, place diff here
Relate this diff to a finding of fact, principle, enforcement, or remedy listed in the Final Decision
Summation

For full disclosure, I participated in the ArbCom case (although my dealings were with Cesar Tort, not Ombudsman). In the current dispute, I have been attempting to mediate between those contributing pro- and anti- content, but not providing significant content myself.

Reported by: Rockpocket 11:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I have held off commenting until now because I'm not entirely sure whether I support its inclusion or not. I don't think the arguments by Cloveoil are particularly convincing, but he does inadvertantly highlight the most important issue: that we should consider the importance of this event - not to Celtic fans or Rangers fan - but to the perception of Celtic from a third, wider perspective. The problem, of course, is that in general only Celtic and Rangers fans frequent this talkpage article regularly, and so its very difficult to be sure anyone of us are in a position to be a neutral arbiter. I'm not suggesting anyone is pushing their POV, simply that we are mostly not in a position to have a completely NPOV.
So - with that stated - I think I would support a very brief mention of Torbett and the boys club scandal in the McCann section of the history. This would provide a link to the article where readers could learn more. Why do I think this is appropriate? Well, because of the wider context: McCann dealt with it in a manner very much of the culture he was trying to instil in the club under his stewardship: he was forthright, but made it clear it was in the past. It could be mentioned in this context. Secondly, Brazil did make the suggestion that the abuse may have been partly linked to his failure to progress to the Celtic team. Finally, Torbett was clearly a figure very close to the old Celtic


[edit] Objectives and approach

The groups states its primary objective is to act as a "forum for open exchange of views" on "issues of concern" to its membership and, whenever possible, form consensus and make recommendations. [1] However, due to the diverse membership, the group will often fail to find consensus. In these situations, they aim to publish "an agreed account of where members (as people familiar with the issues) differ from one another, regarding what they consider to be the relevant facts, the best interpretation of these facts and relevant moral arguments". [1] Issues for debate are raised by members, then discussed by the group (or a sub-group). Occasionally, the group may communicate with other bodies, such as Pro-Test. [2]

The Boyd Group has been criticised by some anti-vivisection organisations. Representatives of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) told a House of Lords select committee the Boyd Group is a "talking shop" with a "pre-set agenda." [3] However, Les Ward of Advocates for Animals defended his organisation's membership of the group and the effectiveness of a collaborative approach:

"Before cosmetic testing was abolished by the government, or a ban introduced, the Boyd Group called for it to be banned. That was great, here was the animal welfare and the scientific community going together to the Home Office with a powerful voice and putting the case forward." [4]

[edit] Membership

The group had, according to Blakemore in 2002, "about 25 member organisations" [5] including animal welfare groups, anti-vivisectionist groups, charitable bodies, government, industry, veterinarians, academic scientists and philosophers. The membership includes both expert individuals and those nominated by, and representative of, groups or societies. The group invites applications for membership, but excluding only individuals and groups that "support violent activity or break the criminal law". [1] Identified members include:

  • Professor Colin Blakemore
  • Professor Kenneth Boyd
  • Bioscience Federation's Animal Science Group [6]
  • Professor Stephen Clark [7]
  • Dr Robert Hubrecht [7]
  • Advocates for Animals [8]
  • RSPCA [8]
  • Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments [8]
  • The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [9]

The Boyd Group lacks representation from a number of large anti-vivisectionist organisations, with Blakemore admitting their "credibility is reduced because of that". [5] Both Ward and Blakemore have expressed a wish to include more of these organisations, including BUAV, NAVS, PETA and Animal Aid. [4] [8]

[edit] Publications

  • Ethical review of research involving animals: a role for institutional ethics committees? (March 1995) [10]
  • Advancing refinement of laboratory animal use (April 1998) [11]
  • The use of animals for testing cosmetics (July 1998) [12]
  • Genetic engineering: animal welfare and ethics (September 1999) [13]
  • The use of non-human primates in research and testing (June 2002) [14]
  • The use of animals in testing household products (December 2002) [15]
  • Boyd Group/RSPCA: Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals (July 2004) [16]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b c About the Boyd Group.PDF Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  2. ^ Pro-Test at the Boyd Group. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  3. ^ Minutes of Evidence, Question 1362. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, March 12, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  4. ^ a b Minutes of Evidence, Question 1384. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, March 12, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  5. ^ a b Minutes of Evidence, Question 964. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, January 22, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  6. ^ Report of the Animal Science Group of the Biosciences Federation for 2005. Biosciences Federation. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  7. ^ a b Current APC Members and Register of Interests. The Animal Procedures Committee. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  8. ^ a b c d Minutes of Evidence, Question 967. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, January 22, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  9. ^ Minutes of Evidence, Question 1004. Select Committee on Animals In Scientific Procedures, January 22, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  10. ^ A role for Institutional Ethics Committees? The Boyd Group, 1995. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  11. ^ Advancing refinement of laboratory animal use.PDF Laboratory Animals. 1998; 32:137-42. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  12. ^ The use of animals for testing cosmetics. The Boyd Group, 1998. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  13. ^ Genetic engineering: animal welfare and ethics. The Boyd Group, 1999. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  14. ^ The use of non-human primates in research and testing.PDF The Boyd Group, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  15. ^ The use of animals in testing household products.PDF The Boyd Group, 2002. Retrieved December 12, 2006.
  16. ^ Categorising the severity of scientific procedures on animals.PDF The Boyd Group/RSPCA, 2004. Retrieved December 12, 2006.

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/c/User%7ERockpocket_Scrapbook_7c25.html"