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)

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.