Talk:Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day

Tags

In regards to the "advert" and "importance" tags. How is this page more of an advert than the World Aids Day Page, and how is it less important? Is it simply because this day is less well known? Morydd 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability The actual Day in Question has been covered by News Media Worldwide.The UK call it by a slightly different name but it is now a National Event supported throughout the UK.It was also this year introduced into Australia for the 1st time. I am at the moment trying to collate all the Media reports from 2000 onwards to see the significance of this day.I am sure it deserves inclusion in the wiki.It just has to be proved and shown on the page before its deleted. Rosenthalenglish 09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Notability seems established by now, since this remembrance day has been approved by the House of Representatives, etc. I am removing the "importance" tag. Still, the article needs a good cleanup, should include a clearer description of history, current status, and so forth, and cite more sources. I will change the tags accordingly. Sorted as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above comment from me about vandalism seems to have been a rumour without foundation put out via another group to belittle them.The Canadian group were encouraged and supported by New Brunswick MLA Roly Macintyre and MP Paul Zed in their Campaign efforts(Letter from MLA Roly Macintyre St John Champlain dated 12th December 2005) & (Letter from MP for St John,Paul Zed dated November 14th 2005)I have seen and have copies of both letters. I have removed the above comment that I made as it has been proved to be untrue. Rosenthalenglish (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing

There is no truth to the statement regarding the Canadian branch also known as the Canadian Foundation for Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Campaign. The Statements being made with regard to dis-affiliation and vandalism are simply untrue.

The director of the Canadian Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Movement has not operated under the direction of the American Campaign since October 12, 2005 when New Brunswick became the first province in Canada to declare October 15 to be pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day and The Canadian Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Campaign was created. [1] TLCoggan 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding vandalizing the page in question, the page in question was created by the director of the Canadian Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Campaign in august 2006.

The director of the Canadian Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Campaign has made only minor alteration to the page since its creation. Terra-LynnC(talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that interested parties should not be editing items to do with the Organisation they run.We had to obey the rules reguarding the Miscarriage & Infant Loss Memorial Book.We have not edited that page since it was pointed out to us.The same should apply to both the US & Canadian Pregnancy & Infant Loss Remembrance pages.Vandalism can mean deleting and article more than 3 times which was done by both Canadian & US members of these orginisations.It was not to reflect against the Canadian branch but both parties that I put the above notice and contacted and administratorRosenthalenglish (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The information which is posted with regard to "members" of the Canadian Pregnancy Loss and Infant Death Awareness and Remembrance Campaign attempting to delete and vandalize the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day page in not correct, it is a fabrication, a complete allegation.

The WIKI history dose not indicate that any attempt was made to delete the page by "members" of either the American or Canadian organizations. More over, why would "members" of the Canadian Campaign attempt to delete a page which was created by the Canadian Campaign director to highlight the cause and world wide campaign efforts, it simple dose not make since.

With regard to editing items concerning the organization/s, I believe that the information needs to be complete and accurate there for editing may be necessary. TLCoggan 04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to "We had to obey the rules reguarding the Miscarriage & Infant Loss Memorial Book", what are the rules you are refering to? Can you direct me to where I can find the rules in which you are refering too? TLCoggan 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Rosenthalenglish, when you contacted the director of Canadian Foundation for October 15 Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day on behalf of Robyn Bear and The American Campaign you stated "Tell your side to leave it to me. I will be fair and try and put the truth out". Clearly you have made no attempt to be fair or to put the truth out. You option is biased by you affiliations with the American Pregnancy and Infant Loss Campaign. Furthermore, it is my hope that in time the truth concerning the matter between the Canadian and American Campaigns will come to light, thus enabling the public to make a determination concerning the subject matter. Clearly this is another orchestrated attack upon the Canadian Campaign to undermine the campaign efforts and delay progress. A stop needs to be put to this nonsense so that the emphasis can be put into meaningful campaign efforts, raising awareness, remembrance, and support of families who experience pregnancy loss and infant death. TLCoggan 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,Terra-Lynn,I can assure you I have nothing to do with the organisation "Pregnancy & Infant Loss Remembrance Day".I did listen to your side of the story.The quote you moved over from the other site was made BEFORE I heard your side of the story.I did verything possible to help you after that time including contacting an editor administrator and explaining the rpoblem between the two groups.I think your group has every right to work in Canada.However I must point out that both paries were breaking Wikipedia rulses at the time.Both sides were constantly changing the page and either adding or deleting info about each other.It shows up clearly in the history of the page.By deleting information from a page 3 or more times clearly breaks the rules see [2]. Also we were informed by another editor that if your in charge of an orginisation then you shouldnot be editing pages to do with that orginisation.Nothing against your group just following the guidelines that stae all articles should be neutral in content.see [3].Your editing should be in accordance with this article-[4].It makes it very clear in these paragraphs.I hope that helps your organisation to go forward and acheive its aims.A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

Regarding "The quote you moved over from the other site was made BEFORE I heard your side of the story" if this is the case I believe that the following quote "It would seem that the Canadian branch which has been dis-affiliated from the October 15th Organization is trying to vandalize this page systematically" should be removed as the information is neither true or accurate. TLCoggan 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The page needs to be monitored systematically given that it was vandalized in April of 2016 when a defamatory statement was made against one of the original founders. The derogatory statement was posted by an anonymous user in NYC. MrsPhinch (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing

Does "New Brunswick" require it's own stand-alone section? If it's to be included as noteworthy because it is the first province in Canada to recognize Oct 15th, shouldn't that fall under the section regarding the Canadian movement in general? LadyCroc (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.[1]

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Removal of Tags

It is my hope that the resent additions to the Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day page are in accordance with Wiki policies and the article presents a nutral position. Regarding the citation and clean-up tags, I do believe that the article is now in accordance with the policies governing the above mentioned tags. Who is responsible for making a determination regarding removal of tags? TLCoggan 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The following information requires citation and references: The October 15th Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day (PAILRD) Campaign began in 2002 as an American movement started by Robyn Bear, Lisa Brown, and Tammy Novak. Together, they petitioned the federal government, as well as the governors of each of the 50 states, and by October 15, 2002 (the first observance of PAILRD) 20 states had signed proclamations recognizing the date as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.222.7 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

International Campaigns

A stand alone section is required for International Campaigns following the initial establishment of Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrane Day by the American and Canadian Campaigns

The information following the Canadian Campaign in the the history section require s it's own stand alone section, perhaps, under the "International Campaign" sub. All that was added to the history section following the Canadian Campaigns should be moved to another section whereas it is the American & Canadian Campaigns that introduced the day and set the precedence for others to follow. It is important to extend credit where credit is due however it is important that in doing so we do not take away ground the Campaigns intital foundation and establishment. MrsPhinch (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

All sections require a good clean up, with attention given to both history and campaigns sections. The history section is missing cited content which appears in previous versions of the article, however is removed from the current version. The removed content is cited with independent sources and is unclear why the article content is removed, revisions are required to reinstate the missing content. The campaigns section should reflect chronological order related to the occurrence of when events significant to the establishment took place in observation of the day, and should therefore appear in chronological order. The earliest date noted in the establishment of the date is found in the campaign section sub-section under the sub section "historic precedence". DocWattkins (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

the article requires major clean up and revision to revert it to it’s prev state, see page talk discussion are: page protection for more info. Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits

I am going to -delete the Canadian subheadings and just put them under the Canadian heading. -editing grammar and spelling mistakes. -creating a section talking about its importance -editing plagiarized statements -adding new historical information -deleting dead links and adding more credible sources Thoma4a6 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC) thoma4a6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

Can the Liturgical Color please be amended to pink and blue as this has always been the colour of ribbon, not white with pink/blue/purple.

Also the picture of the official PAiL campaign ribbon is wrong and can it please be removed. R.Kate De'Laney (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, R.Kate De'Laney. Please provide a link to a reliable, independent source that describes these colors that way. Explain why a secular movement has "liturgical" colors. Whose liturgy? Explain in detail why the image is wrong.

This article is going to be held to rigid sourcing standards because of the feuding and bickering among various editors with conflicts of interest including you, and especially because that is best for the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed all mentions of the campaign ribbon that I could find, because the content is disputed and lacks an independent reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Liturgical Color refers to the customary public worship performed by a religious group. As a religious phenomenon, liturgy represents a communal response to and participation in the sacred through activities reflecting praise, thanksgiving, remembrance, supplication or repentance, and is not related to the colour of the ribbon it is relevant to the habit worn by the clergy who is conducting the services, in the case of Pregnancy and Infant Loss, the habit worn is white with pink, blue, and or purple.

Concerning the content removed by user: Phil Bridger the cause colors, and campaign ribbon is a necessary piece of information relevant to the article. Would it not be reasonable to cite the content removed with an alternate source, in the event the reference is the issue?

Additionally, user: Kate R. DeLaney has a declared COI conflict with the article, see users talk for more information. Individuals who have a COI are not to alter content, nor suggest article alterations. DocWattkins (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

And shouldn't you declare a conflict of interest? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a COI to declare. DocWattkins (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

DocWattkins Your statement, above, that "Individuals who have a COI are not to .... suggest article alterations." is incorrect.
As stated at WP:COIEDIT

• you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;

Arjayay (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Arjayay thank you for clarifying. Can you provide a link to wiki content referencing COI for additional information. DocWattkins (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Re: Litcolor = White ć Pink and Blue, and/or Purple. Please revert to current version prior to {{Philip Bridget}} lit revision {{citation}} A Priest’s Homily on Miscarriage, By Adam M., 10/05/2020 DocWattkins (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

reinstate section removed my user: Phil Bridger, re: campaign ribbon and cause colors, including the ribbon that was removed from the Canadian Campaigns section, and is the official ribbon of the {{PAiL Awareness Campaign}}, that includes but is not limited to: {{Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month}}, {{Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day Canada}}, and the {{International Wave of Light}}. The origins of the day, and the main event, {{Lights of Love International Wave of Light}} is well established and reflected in the edit history which appears to have experienced major alterations made by user: Kate R. DeLaney {{COI}} being 17/02/21 and continuing to the point of installation of Page Protection 12/03/21. {{citation}} {{The pink and blue ribbon is a symbol for promoting: Baby loss awareness}}. Buildings, landmarks, monuments, and venue are illuminated in pink, blue, and purple too... {{Wave of Light: How Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day is being marked across Ireland tonight}}, {{October 15 Community Toolkit}} Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Citing Independent Sources

This talk thread is created for the purpose of sharing independent sources relevant to article improvement. DocWattkins (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• November 24, 2020 article in National Geographic titled "Black mothers grieve the babies they lost—and help more survive their first year" mentions PAIL acronym in use in US state of Ohio and lists specific statistics and concerns regarding disproportionate rate of pregnancy loss and infant death in the black community due to structural racism. Cedar777 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• Article relevant to establishment of PAiL Awareness Campaigns, provides chronological historical understanding of major parties responsible in the formation of the day of remembrance and coinciding activities. Article: Robinson, Michael; Coggan, Terra-Lynn (2018-11-13). Poirier, Jack (ed.). "Our sun failed to shine". Telegraph-Journal. New Brunswick Publishing Co. Archived from the original on 2018-11-15. Retrieved 2018-11-15. DocWattkins (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Telegraph-Journal article can no longer be found via the archived or original links in the Wikipedia article. A search on the Telegraph-Journal‘s webpage also comes up empty for the title “Our sun failed to shine”. Cedar777 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Restoration & Improvement

The history, Canada, and International Wave of Light sections requires restoration of the content and references that were removed, whether in error or otherwise, following 02/17/21, to provide greater understanding of the origins of the day, individuals responsible for its creation, and the central event around which it revolves. Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 16:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Absent reliable sources that support that earlier content, there is no reason to restore it.

Overall, this article is quite odd in that it overemphasizes minuscule details about campaigns to legitimize the cause while neglecting to adequately address the cause itself.

The average reader who encounters this topic is unlikely to have an interest in who lobbied who when and where . . . Rather the subject of why has there been a 20-year international effort for the social recognition of this issue? The article would benefit from a further reduction of unsourced campaign details and a refocusing on what WP:RSP reliable sources state about the cause. Cedar777 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Cedar777, the significance of origins is important to establish greater insight and understanding. You can not write out others part in the establishment of events out while leaving others, to do so is biased. Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The origin story is relevant but needs to be reliably sourced, preferably from secondary sources rather than primary sources. I support removing mention of other un-sourced individual campaign initiators as well. Will wait awhile for other editors to weigh in and/or provide citations where the article has been tagged. Regards, Cedar777 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

"The non-profit organization Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep has provided a volunteer photography service for parents who have lost babies during pregnancy or shortly after.[16]" is no longer relevant to the International Wave of Light section in which it now appears. Should it be moved to another stand alone section that speaks to the support and services available? Thank you. DocWattkins (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Content was removed from section and article as it neither warranted its own section nor fit into another existing section. Cedar777 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User DocWattkins has been blocked as another sock of MrsPhinch. Greyjoy ^talk 05:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

An edit request is suitable only for non-controversial changes that either have consensus or for which there is no reason to believe an objection might be made. If someone other than an single-purpose account has a proposal, please make it here and wait for comments. An "edit request" template should not be used for that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

Telegraph-Journal

[Text with assumed copyright removed Johnuniq (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)]

Source: https://tj.news/greater-saint-john/story/100764450/stillborn-lights-of-love-holidays-remembrance

142.177.110.190 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC) 142.177.110.190 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you'd like to make to the article. Please outline exactly what you'd like to add, remove or change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

And please remember that this article is about the day, and only about Terra-Lynn Coggan as far as she relates to the day, bearing in mind WP:UNDUE. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The link provided to the Telegraph-Journal article above is inactive and cannot be used to verify this content. Cedar777 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)