Talk:Rainbow Bridge (pets)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Authorship and origins[edit]

user:ChavaGirl - With regard to the Rainbow Bridge article, the thing is, that yes, we know who the copyright holder of the book rainbow bridge is. What we don't know is if that is the original source for the text, or if it draws upon something earlier.

The uncertainty is this:

A lot of texts end up in books. It is self-evident that a person who writes a book is a copyright holder of his own book. That doesn't need saying. Copyright is automatic to the author, and to add "copyrighted in 1994 with the US Copyright office" has two negative impacts on the article: it's adding information that's implied within authorship already, and it makes the article look like it is trying to emphasize or show bias. This is an encyclopedia, so we are very careful to ensure everything in it is written in the style of a neutral source of information. copyright is automatic to the author of any text, so if we add that it looks like we're trying to push one "side" in the debate.

In fact, all we know about britton is that his book contains the writing. We don't know if this was the original source for the notion, or the original place it was published, and we have to be careful because we are a source of reference information and we can't put our own assumptions down as facts.

If you look on google, you'll see what the problem is. Look at this link:

What this says is that the idea of rainbow bridge can be traced on the net to before 1994. We can see several posts of the notion of "crossing the Rainbow Bridge together", and at least three quotes that suggest the poem was already in circulation and known at that point.

The first archived post mentioning the poem, here, states on January 7 1993 that "The following was taken from Mid-Atlantic Great Dane Rescue League Newsletter which reprinted it from the Akita Rescue Society of America". So given that newsletters take at least a week to print, the poem was already being circulated in printed form by December 1992, and being quoted and circulated. (Of course the archive itself may be lacking earlier mentions.) This post adds the further information that the "Rainbow Bridge" poem was well enough known by 1993 that people would quote just one line of it and expect others to understand. Britton published his version of it in print in 1994, and could have written it earlier; the problem is we don't know if he did, or if he got the idea from someone else's prior work, and lacking sources that confirm this, we can't assume it.

In other words we have no way to know who the original author of the notion was. We know that Britton published it in a book, but we don't know if the original poem was his, or whose idea the poem was, who inspired it, or who wrote the first draft that was circulated before them. We know he wrote it in a book that was published in 1994, but we also know it was widely in circulation at least as early as 1992. Wikipedia's "job" is to state what can be cited and verified from credible sources, and try to avoid making undue assumptions. That is what we know, and what is worth saying. So that is why the article states what it does.

[We can continue to discuss this here if you like, and that way others can read it in time to come and see what was covered. Its usual to "sign" your post by putting "~~~~" at the end of it; this automatically adds a signature. Note that you don't "sign" edits to articles, only to talk pages and other discussions.]

FT2 (Talk | email) 13:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a nit to pick. You write above that 'it is self-evident that a person who writes a book is a copyright holder of his own book. That doesn't need saying.'. But that's not true. Firstly, it wasn't true in the past, and it may not be true in the future, and even in times when it is true, it's not true all over the world. It simply isn't true that 'Copyright is automatic to the author' everywhere or everywhen. Secondly, authors can also assign copyright to anyone they choose: it's not impossible that the author assigned copyright to his or her publisher, spouse, children, or some random stranger. It may have been ghost-written, or a work-for-hire. The person who authors a work is not necessarily the copyright holder even if there is a copyright holder. Limeguin (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

never heard of this[edit]

I never heard of this concept before! Is it part of American mythology? Maybe we need to add more cultural information to give context about where this belief is active.--Sonjaaa 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it can now be considered part of American "popular" folk belief - many pet owners take this concept VERY seriously; some use the phrase "helping him [the pet] cross the bridge" as a euphemism for euthanasia of a sick pet. It does not seem to be limited to any one specific kind of pet, or any particular American geographic region.--Deepdesert 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you read near death experiences, children who were clinically dead and come back have reported meeting former pets before meeting people. Adults also report meeting former pets, but usually after being greeted by people first. A Biblical basis for animals being in the next life is discussed here Plain scientific evidence for near death accounts being true is here

There is a discussion here about about the relative rarity of seeing familiar pets in near-death experiences, but seeing people who the person who nearly died hardly knew in this life.

There was also a Twilight-Zone episode about a man who refused to enter what appeared to be paradise because his dog, who died with him, was not allowed in. He made the correct choice in that episode, as Saint Peter told him that dogs were not allowed to enter Hell because they would smell the brimstone from afar and warn their owners. Since dogs were not allowed to enter Hell in that episode, by simple logic "all dogs go to Heaven." The Twilight-Zone episode resembles part of an Sanskrit epic. (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)David

Odd reference to writing down feelings and reading those of others[edit]

I deleted two sentences from the intro that sounded more like text for a Comments or Memorial page of a pet loss website

" On the Rainbow Bridge anyone and everyone can write down their feelings as a way of remembering their pet and its life. Reading of other animals passage and the thoughts of their owners is thought to help with the grieving process."

The use of the phrase "On the Rainbow Bridge" in this passage makes no sense, considering that this article is about a concept/belief, not a specific website /grief forum. Also, no mention was given of where "anyone and everyone" could write down their feelings. Wichienmaat (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. -- (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
There are websites called "rainbow bridge" where people can post their thoughts about their loss. Perhaps this is what was being referenced by this term. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the Bible[edit]

The problem seems to be another one: The sentences "One day, upon the pet owner's death, the owner crosses the meadow on his/her journey toward Heaven. The pet spots its owner and runs to greet him. The pet and owner reunite, and cross the Rainbow Bridge together into Heaven, never again to be parted." are not original quotes. The story as it is to be found on the internet - e.g. on the site linked at the bottom of the article - does not mention heaven except for the place "rainbow bridge" to be located just outside of it. So the sentences should read: "One day the owner crosses the meadow. The pet spots its owner and runs to greet him. The pet and owner reunite, and cross the Rainbow Bridge together, never again to be parted." and your problem is solved. Nobody will know, however, why the owner crosses the place, that is presumably why the additions were made. Wschroedter (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)