This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The article states: "... Partial workarounds include manually switching zone files every year and a Microsoft tool that switches zones automatically."

Why are either of those considered a "partial" workaround? What is the limitation? This should be addressed, or perhaps this reference eliminated. -- 65.31.142.95 10:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Eubulides 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Lohr (2007-03-05). "Time change a 'mini-Y2K' in tech terms". New York Times. says "A report last year by the Energy Department projected savings in electricity at four-tenths of a percent each day of extended daylight savings time.... The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit group, estimates that the cumulative benefit through 2020 of longer daylight saving time would be a saving of $4.4 billion and 10.8 million metric tons less carbon spewed into the air." I looked for these reports in all the obvious places (e.g., aceee.org, doe.gov) but could not find them. Does anyone know where they are? The "Rationale" section is a bit weak right now and could use some strong citations. Eubulides 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I did find the ACEEE's estimate of savings from the energy efficiency provisions in the final bill but its numbers are labeled poorly and do not match the numbers in Lohr's article. It seems to be estimating a year-2020 saving of $329 million and 0.8 million metric tons of carbon. Anyway, the ACEEE estimate is still fairly mysterious. Eubulides 06:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Carl Bialik reports that the ACEEE numbers are based on 1970s data and are uncertain, so I guess we can ignore them. Here's the citation: Carl Bialik ( 2007-11-02). "Longer daylight time may save energy—but stats are stale". Wall Street Journal. p. B1. {{ cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help) Eubulides 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reference to climate differences as reasons whether to use/not use DST? For instance, in hot and humid climates, the electricity saving might be offset by higher use of air conditioners; and heat and humidity have an effect on traffic as well - so perhaps moving the rush-hours nearer to midday is not such a great idea there? 88.153.196.201 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any high-quality studies of that issue, no. Eubulides 09:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A section on the debate as to whether to discontinue Daylight saving time should definitely be included in the article. The Filmaker 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A new section Politics has been added. Eubulides 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Me myself find daylight savings a stupid idea besides which farmers can always change there daly timetable if needed . Richardson j 13:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you haven't read the Politics section. Farmers typically oppose DST. Eubulides 18:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of us were 'taught' in schools as children that Daylight Saving Time was a construct intended to benefit the farmers. - Tenmiles 05:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know the source of this misinformation. Perhaps you have a reference? Maybe you can call up your teacher and ask? I'm joking a bit here, but I'm also being serious: it is common misinformation but I don't know where it came from. Eubulides 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in general seems pretty biased against DST. ==Wulfe

How does it seem biased against it? It's reasons for it aren't great, admittedly - "adding daylight to afternoons generally benefits retailing, sports, and other activities that exploit sunlight after working hours" doesn't make much sense to me, since it generally adds daylight to summer evenings when there's already plenty of it (personally I'd find it far better if it was used to add evening time in the winter). The farmer argument one is false; the farmer can presumably keep to his own clock, and doesn't have to work very often to a schedule decided by other people. -- Riedquat 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

DST adds daylight to spring and autumn and (in North America) winter evenings as well, which is why retailing etc. interests fight so hard to extend its scope. The problem with farmers is not the farmer's own time, which of course can be whatever is convenient; it's the interaction between the farmer's time and outsiders'. The current text gives the example of hiring field hands; there are others. Anyway, as far as bias goes, there seems to be a low volume of vague complaints about both pro- and anti-DST bias (see #NPOV below) which is what one would expect from a relatively unbiased article. Eubulides 03:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The repeated use of the abbreviation DST really grates. Such repetition is poor writing syle and it's made worse when the repetition is an Americanism which still seems odd to my eye. The article should have some elegant variation so that it doesn't keep hammering away with the same abbreviation. Colonel Warden 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I think you're making much ado about nothing. -- Belg4mit 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed 22 instances of "DST". If you think of an elegant variation that could remove more of them nicely, please let us know. (I couldn't think of one.) Eubulides 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that nobody typed in std by mistake instead Richardson j 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Acutally, the recently removed daylight chart software seemse perfectly reasonable, and might even be used to produce a better chart than that I submitted. ( Although it seems to use some goofy font.) -- Belg4mit 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If it can produce a better chart, that'd be great. We can add a reference to it in the chart's caption or description. However, for the main page I'd rather stick with a small "External links" section with core, high-value links; this link seems comparatively peripheral to the main subject. Eubulides 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the sample chart and it does look nice, except for the font. It's upside down from the usual presentation, but I prefer it that way. Eubulides 07:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SualehFatehi created Image:Boston_MA_DaylightChart.png and put it into the main article, but that version of the article has some problems:

• The labels on the axes are so small that they are unreadable in the thumbnail. This wasn't true in the older version of the article, where the print is small but readable.
• The font is still hard-to-read. It should be an easy-to-read font.
• The labels are in English. In the figure itself, the labels should just use international-format dates and times, so that the image can be used in other translations of this page.
• It's nicer to use Greenwich since DST was invented in nearby Petts Wood.

I reverted the change for now, and left a note on User talk:SualehFatehi#Boston MA DaylightChart.png suggesting changes along these lines. I do like the overall graphic appearance of the new image better, if these problems can get resolved. Eubulides 22:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, please take a look at the new image I uploaded, Image:Greenwich_GB.png. If you find this meets the needs, please include it in the article. Thanks.

Thanks for the image. It looks good and addresses all my comments. Eubulides 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The last section of the introduction and the 'Associated practices' paragraph claims the time shifts are used as a reminder of fire safety practices. Is this a world wide (as far as DST is used) practice? Or just used in the US? I've never heard of it. (Does 'be bold with editing' mean I should just edit this right away?) Calamarain 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not world wide (as some areas don't have good fire-safety practices) but neither is it limited to the US. I added text saying it occurs in many countries, and added a reference to a New Zealand fire safety press release. It's also in at least Australia and the UK and I expect many other countries that have both DST and good fire-safety practices. Eubulides 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I'd never heard of it before, but googling revealed some examples from outside English speaking countries ( NL, FR) as well. Calamarain 07:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)in an area where daylight savings time is used? How this effects time diferences could be explained somehow. For instance, if my time is -6GMT then how do I accout for the hour difference that is added (or subtracted?) to know the time relationship.

Thanks for the suggestion. I added the text "a location observing UTC+2 during standard time is at UTC+3 during DST; conversely, a location at UTC-5 during standard time is at UTC-4 during DST." Eubulides 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And to answer your question DST is used here in Britain, converting from GMT to British Summer Time. SGGH ^speak! 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify what SGGH said in case people get confused, GMT is always GMT. It never changes. The UK is GMT+0 during winter and GMT+1 during summer. Nil Einne

Any objection to changing the section header "Energy conservation" to "Energy use"? That would be shorter and more neutral, since there's some dispute as to whether DST conserves energy. Eubulides 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No objection, so I renamed it. Eubulides 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As well as the map, a percentage of the worlds population that use it and don't use it would be helpful, to better illustrate the statement "the majority of the worlds population don't use it" in conjunction with the map. Does anyone have such info? We can work it out if we really have to. SGGH ^speak! 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It can certainly be worked out, but I don't think this information is nearly as informative as you assert. -- Belg4mit 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus the exact percentage would veer towards original research, and so would run afoul of WP:OR. Eubulides 05:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Too bad the timing wasn't better i.e; nearer either one of the time-changes. -- Belg4mit 02:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

'Tis a nice article. Good job, all. I especially like the pictures in the references section. : ) Paul Haymon 02:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good article overall, but what's up with the blank "Hawaii & Arizona" and "Indiana" sections?

Someone added that today, and someone else removed it soon after, thank goodness. Eubulides 17:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there an apparent assumption that politicians should do anything other than represent the people who vote for them?

The last sentence in the Politics section

"...and several politicians changed positions to gain tactical advantage after public sentiment swung against it"

should surely read

"...and several politicians changed positions to reflect their constituents' views after public sentiment swung against it".

Thanks for the comment. If you follow the cited reference you'll see that both tactics and public sentiment had roles. But you're right that the phrase "to gain tactical advantage" was unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the Wikipedia article so I removed it. Eubulides 07:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For those who find it useful: "Spring forward, fall back."

Sadly, "Spring forward, Autumn back" doesn't work quite as well. GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The clock shifts can serve as twice-yearly reminders to replace smoke alarm batteries and review fire escape plans.[9]" - I don't like the inclusion of this sentence, it is trivia/prescriptive ("here's a helpful thing you can do with DST") rather than somethign fundamental tot he article. Can it be removed? - PocklingtonDan ( talk) 09:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is another reason for removal too: it can serve as a twice yearly reminder for ANYTHING. Going to the dentist, cleaning your gutters etc. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the shifts in North America aren't useful as a reminder for the dentist; the dental insurance companies in the US typically won't cover the 6 month checkup unless 6 months + 1 day has passed. Even before 2007, it was closer to 7 months of DT and 5 months of ST. At an 8 months of DT and 4 months of ST it's even worse. Jon 13:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's somewhat academic. My point is that there is nothing inherent about DST that relates to checking your smoke alarm or fire escape plans, and nothing inherent about checking your smoke alarm or fire escape plans that HAS to be done every six months, coinciding with DST changes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit odd to criticise fire safety reminders as "trivial" and "prescriptive". After all, everything about daylight saving time is "trivial" and "prescriptive", and if we omitted trivial and prescriptive topics we wouldn't have an article at all. Fire safety officials regularly do use the DST changeovers to remind citizens about changing batteries in smoke alarms. See, for example, From the radio station to the fire station, an Australian news article that mentions this topic even now, in the middle of July. (We do not observe widespread coverage about DST and visits to the dentist, which is why that isn't worth mentioning here.) I agree that there is nothing inherent about DST here (people could use the first days of spring and autumn for instance), but still, the fact is that DST is what fire safety officials actually recommend. Since it's commonly mentioned in the news media and is a real public safety issue, it seems worthy of a brief mention here. If the wording bothers you, perhaps you can mention something briefer? Eubulides 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand me, perhaps deliberately

• I did not say that issues of fire safety are "trivial", just that mention of the the fact that DST can be used as a reminder for fire safety is a piece of trivia.
  • I do not agree it is trivia. This is a judgment call, but we have fire safety officials of many countries on one side of this issue; what reliable sources are on the other side? Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia's job is not to act as a public safety coordinator. Regardless of the merits of warning people to check their smoke alarm batteries or to always wear high-vis vests on a construction site or to always be careful sipping hot coffee, these items should not be included in an article unless they are of primary relevance to the article.
  • Construction mentions Construction site safety in its lead; should this trivia be removed as well? Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Advising someone of when to check their smoke alarms is prescriptive by definition, whether you like it or not.
  • I agree that it's prescriptive. My point was that all of Daylight saving time is prescriptive: it tells you when to change your clocks. So criticizing fire safety reminders because they are "prescriptive" is a bit odd. Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• It is in the lead section, but is not covered in the article - the lead should contain a summary of the article, not throaway uncited statements that are not expanded upon in the article.
  • This is incorrect. One paragraph of the article covers this topic.
• I would suggest that mention of DST being used as a reminder for fire alarms in an Australian region is hardly indicative of this as a typical cultural phenomenon.
  • Reminders are issued in many countries, not just Australia. It is a regular phenomenon of DST reminders. Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Your concentration in your response to my point on fire safety and not dentistry smacks of an argumentum ad populum on an emotive issue.
  • I was responding to an earlier comment about dentist reminders. I did not bring up dentistry first. Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Stating that DST can be used for booking dentist appointments or for checking smoke alarms (which you did in the article) is not the same as saying that DST is recommended by fire safety officials for setting your alarm (which you didn't in the article)
  • But DST is recommended by fire safety officials for setting your alarm. The article says this, with a citation. Many more citations could be provided, but one is enough for a Wikipedia article. Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Regardless of all the above, the use of DST for reminding someone of anything is surely trivia and not at all fundamental to the nature, origins, or arguments over DST.
  • As this discussion shows, it is certainly part of the arguments! Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- PocklingtonDan ( talk) 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the body of the article. I see absolutely no need for it to be mentioned in the opening paragraph, which should concentrate on a summary of DST itself, not reminders based on it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in the opening paragraph; it was mentioned in the third paragraph. In its most recent form it was a 10-word summary of a 100-word paragraph. This is not out of line for a lead sentence, so I don't understand the objection. Eubulides 17:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone improve the sentence that begins "While an envoy to France"? That phrase is too short, and it is confusing to read. I would change it myself, but thought I'd defer to one of the major editors. Jlaramee 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is confusing about it? The word "envoy"? I used "envoy" because he wasn't actually an ambassador, he was a commissioner, but explaining "commissioner" would take up far too much space. Or is it the word "While" that is a problem? Would you prefer "While he was an envoy to France"? Eubulides 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The confusion comes from the ambiguity of the word "while" (more than from the shortness--sorry). Example: "While I was in Italy, I drank a lot of red wine." as opposed to "While I was in agreement with most of his points, I thought his approach was misguided." In this case, you eventually figure out which meaning is intended, but having to think about it a little bit slows you down (or it slowed me down, anyway). Something like "During his time as an envoy" is not necessarily the most elegant way to express it, but it gets directly to the meaning (i.e. time-descriptive) of the adverbial phrase. I may be making too much out of this. Jlaramee 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Clarity first, elegance later, so I changed the wording to "During his time as an envoy" for now until we can think of something more elegant. Eubulides 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How has this bad article made it onto the main page? This article gives a poor global view of the subject and, like the majority of Wikipedia articles, is first and foremost US-biased, closely followed by being UK-biased. Most examples are from the US/UK and the whole thing gives a US/UK perspective. The "rest of the world" is by and large wrapped up in a single section. Such articles should never be permitted on the main page. 86.27.67.86 17:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar comments came up in the review process, and were answered as follows. DST was invented by an Englishman and much of the initial controversy about it was originally in Britain and the U.S.; controversies elsewhere tend to rehash the same topics and are less well documented. By far the best reliable documentation for DST's effects are U.S. and UK sources. The great majority of people who observe DST are in the northern hemisphere, so it is reasonable that most of the examples are in the northern hemisphere. All that being said, if you see a specific instance of biased coverage in the page, please let us know. Eubulides 17:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The variable-length hours that predated the use of mechanical clocks are an irrelevance. Their purpose was completely different. That material is not appropriate in the introduction or under Origins, and may cause confusion.

So remove "; some ancient cultures lengthened each summer daylight hour instead".

The portion in Origins (first paragraph) could be retained with a heading or sub-heading of its own, though I see no need for it in this Article.

82.163.24.100 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why unequal hours are irrelevant. Ancient and modern schemes both adjust daily schedules to the sun. It's true they do so in different ways, but there is something in common. See the article's citation to Berthold Ullman's paper "Daylight saving in ancient Rome". Ullman thought unequal hours were relevant, at any rate; do you have a reliable source that disagrees? As for confusion, it could well be that the current wording is confusing. I agree that unequal hours were a different scheme but thought that the article explained this adequately. It would help if you could explain the confusion you see, so that the wording can be improved. Eubulides 23:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe does not use DST; that is an Americanism. The term "Summer Time" should be used wherever the reference is to or in Europe (those other European countries for which I recollect the terms employ equivalent terms).

It could be of interest to list, in Terminology, the terms used in the major languages of substantial areas that use seasonal clock changes; include, say, UK, FR, NL, DE, IT, ES, PT, RU, JP, AU/NZ, BR, MX maybe.

The first British use of Summer Time is not mentioned, alas.

82.163.24.100 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article uses American double-quotes and American spelling throughout, so it's consistent for it to use American terminology as well (while also mentioning the British and Australian alternatives of course). It would be somewhat confusing for the article to switch terminology depending on whether the example is American or European, just as it would be confusing for an article on pediatrics to call a doctor a "pediatrician" or a "paediatrician" depending on whether the doctor happened to live in America or Europe. Daylight saving time#Terminology currently covers only English-language terms, which is appropriate for an English-language article; people who want to know terminology for other languages can consult the wikilinked-to pages in alternative languages. Daylight saving time#Politics says "the United Kingdom first used DST on 1916-05-21". Eubulides 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone include some discussion of the costs to the transportation industry of the 'change of time's. Back when I worked for a living, we all hated the switch, especially the fall change. Ever truck/train/plane that arrived at 01:30 DST missed its connection that left at 01:45 ST by 45 minutes. This often meant re-scheduling the whole country for one day. Tommurphy.us 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The current article does mention "disruptions to travel". A more-extended discussion would be nice, but would need a reliable source about the actual costs to the transportation industry. If you know of one please let us know. Eubulides 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article previously had a section of valid criticisms, which is now entirely missing, and the few criticisms remaining in the article are treated in an offhand manner. I have never heard of any real person holding such a favorable view of daylight saving time as it is described here. Please bring this article back to a neutral point of view.

That's a bit vague; can you be more specific? All the main arguments for and against DST are supposed to be in the current article. If one is missing, please let us know. Eubulides 03:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I first read the article in December, 2006, and after a confusing episode where all three of my VCRs just reverted to ST today (10/28/07), confusing the household and causing appointment problems, I thought I'd read the Criticisms section of the article again. Much to my surprise, it is now gone, as are some of the interesting arguments against DST. You can see for yourself which are missing by reading the revision of 08:29, 10 December 2006. True, some were not cited, but they were valuable and if impossible to cite should still be included as "possible" criticism since they make logical sense. In any case, the article's evolution over the year has made it less interesting, and as mentioned earlier in this history, it now appears more as justification for DST rather than a balanced view of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.218.53 ( talk)

I just now read that old section and couldn't find any sourced criticism that is absent from the current version. For example, its first point (disruption of sleep) is currently covered in Daylight saving time#Health. I did see a lot of repetition on that old version, though, so I may have missed something as my eyes glazed over. Could you please be more specific about what criticisms are currently being missed? Eubulides 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This change caused the article to claim that the Jewish calendar has always operated on a system whereby days are divided into 12 equal hours regardless of day length. But that claim is not correct. See, for example: Solomon Gandz (1952). "The division of the hour in Hebrew literature". Osiris. 10: 10–34. Rather than delve into the complexities of ancient Jewish timekeeping, which is a bit off the topic, I thought it better to fall back on a general comment about religious timekeeping and use Mount Athos as an example, since some of the monks there still keep Roman time for daily activities. So I fixed things as follows. Eubulides 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely those go UP when there's more light, as nobody can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 ( talk) 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article not looking for background on why we have DST, etc, but instead trying to figure out when the next time change will be, which does not seem to be in the article at all, or if it is, it's buried. JNW2 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., most areas will revert to Standard Time at 0200 on Sunday, Nov. 4, 2007, and are scheduled to set clocks ahead to DST again on Sunday, March 9, 2008. Worldwide, the answer is more complex. I don't see explicit mention of the transition dates in the article either, but the link Year 2007 problem leads to mention of the current rules in terms of when and where they apply. Hertz1888 06:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's in the article; Daylight saving time #Observance practices says "Starting in 2007, most of the United States and Canada observe DST from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November." The article is intended to be encyclopedic, so it'd be a bit out of place to have "Warning: Clocks change on November 4!" at the start of the article. Eubulides 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Encylopedic or not, I couldnt find that information untill you pointed it out. I'd make the argument that, as it is the actual practical knowledge about daylight savings time, it does merit a bit more promenence in the article. 192.189.123.1 16:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This change introduced several changes to Daylight saving time #Origin, but I'm afraid it has some problems.

• The change causes the article to spend too much time on unimportant details of the origin of daylight saving time. For example, from DST's point of view, it isn't that important that William Willett lived in Chislehurst or that Chislehurst is in Kent, nor is it important that he died of influenza, nor is it important to give yet another quote from Churchill about DST (the article already has one, and that's enough).

• It causes the story of Willett and DST to be repeated, once with the existing text, and once with the new text. Likewise for the story of Britain, Germany, and DST. Likewise for Churchill.

• It introduced uncited quotes; in Wikipedia all direct quotes must be cited.

For now I'm planning to revert the changes; comments welcome. It would be OK, I think, to add some of the details in this change, (though the above problems need to be addressed) so long as "Origin" doesn't become too long. Or, if there's interest in a lot of detail here, perhaps we should start a new page History of daylight saving time that has the extra detail. Eubulides 15:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No further discussion, so I undid most (but not all) of the changes here. Eubulides 19:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The "advocated it tirelessly" in the caption for William Willett's photo is conjecture and not fact. Propose rewording to specify verified date range or removal until verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.200.99 ( talk) 19:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation to a reliable source (Prerau, page 22) that says "Willett marshaled the movement's backers and tirelessly worked to win new adherents, while continuing to spend large amounts of his personal fortune for the cause. He sent out hundreds of letters each year to influential people in all walks of life, and published several new editions of The Waste of Daylight, each naming more people who endorsed the proposal." You can't get much more tireless than that. Eubulides 19:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Under politics it states "The U.S. was more typical: Congress repealed DST after 1919. President Woodrow Wilson, like Willett an avid golfer, vetoed the repeal twice but his second veto was overridden,[61] and only a few U.S. cities retained DST locally thereafter.[62]" But in my lifespan we've always done DST. When did we get it back? Shouldn't that also be in the article? Kuronue | Talk 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I made this change. Thanks. Eubulides 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten with less anti-DST bigotry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.0.43 ( talk) 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a cursory first reading, I'm inclined to agree that the article seems to advocate against DST--all those objections and disadvantages right in the introductory section. But to call that bigotry? 140.147.160.78 ( talk) 22:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

The word bigotry may be overkill, but I am interpreting the comment to mean that there is some bias in the article; if that's correct, the bias should be eliminated as much as possible. Several of the followup comments (please see below) have been helpful in that regard. Eubulides ( talk) 00:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit vague; could you please be more specific? For reference, you might want to check out the #NPOV section above, which contains vague claims that the article is biased in favor of DST. Eubulides 03:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Although extreme anti-DST bigotry might be putting the case a bit strongly, the anonymous poster is in my view correct in detecting a systematic bias against DST. Although most statements are backed up by references from authoritative sources these have been cleverly selected to build an argument against DST. Subtle bias starts in the opening paragraph with the phrase "Despite controversy, many countries have used it since then; details vary by location and change occasionally." Does most of the northern hemisphere above certain latitudes really do it "despite controversy"? This is not even referenced - what counts as controversy and how persistent is this controversy? If it is indeed necessary to refer to controversy in the opening paragraph perhaps the word "historically" or the phrase "initial controversy" could be use to qualify this statement somewhat. Later on in the introduction complaints by farmers dating from the 1950s are referenced as through it is a fact that that DST "can cause problems for farmers and others whose hours depend on the sun". It is a pity that the article slipped though to featured status while in this condition as this gives the rather slanted views an air of legitimacy which it does not deserve. laurens ( talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see the #NPOV section for the contrary view that this article is biased in favor of DST. The lead's two-word phrase "despite controversy" summarizes the 670-word " Politics" section in the body; the two words are neither excessive nor inaccurate. The "Politics" section demonstrates that DST remains controversial to this day. Eubulides ( talk) 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have had a cursory look at the politics section and would have to study it in a bit more detail before responding more fully on that section, but it may well suffer from the very same anti-DST bias and can therefore not be a justification for the phrasing in the introduction but should rather be seen as the source of the problem.

Please take your time to read the Politics section carefully. If that section suffers from anti-DST bias, then we should fix it. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The section does appear to confirm my contention that the controversy is for most part something of the past and is now limited to isolated cases in specific parts of the world, whereas DST is well established in many other parts of the world and considered such a good thing that there are countries that are considering extending daylight saving to a bigger portion of the year or even the whole year.

Controversy over DST is not "for most part something of the past". There is controversy about DST right now in Western Australia, in Queensland, in Saskatchewan, in South Korea, in Iran, and in Indiana (among other places); there is controversy in the U.S. over whether the recent extension of DST was a good idea; and controversy over DST helps to explain why a smaller fraction of the world's population observes DST now than did so 20 years ago. If the Politics section is not clear on this point, perhaps we should add more details about recent controversies. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful if we are more precise about the extent of controversy. I assume you agree that for the most part DST in not controversial in places like Western Europe, including most of the UK. It appears that the US is more complex and that is not settled in Australia and other places you mention. What about wording in the introduction along the following lines: "Although initially opposed by some groups and lingering opposition in some locations, daylight saving time is now firmly entrenched in many countries." laurens ( talk) 13:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that wording in the introduction. The opposition is not "lingering" in "some locations"; it is entrenched, and is so widespread that most people in the world do not observe DST; this includes places like China, India, and Japan that briefly tried DST in the past and no longer use it. I agree that western Europe is the most pro-DST region in the world, but even it has some exceptions; for example, Iceland does not observe DST, and many people in the UK dislike their DST observance practices (see, for example, [1]). Eubulides ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't agree with you about the extent of controversy. It appears to be limited to two geographical areas - those states in the US and Australia where DST has not yet been implemented. As for the extent of global implementation - DST is implemented in all developed/industrialised countries bar Japan, four states in the US and three in Australia (OK and apparently Iceland with its 250 odd population). The map showing countries that used to use DST is misleading as most of these are ex-British colonies or other countries that implemented Daylight saving during World War II and who have not (yet) reimplemented it since. I'll check the Iceland situation but it could be that the extreme northern latitude is at issue in this case. laurens ( talk) 06:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like there are some serious misconceptions here about the history and current state of DST. China was never a British colony. It tried DST in the 1986–1991 time period and then abandoned it. This represents a fair-sized fraction of the world's population. A good-sized chunk of central Asia (e.g., Kazakhstan) abandoned DST during the past two decades. It's not the case that "DST has not yet been implemented" in states like Arizona and Queensland: DST has been implemented there (in Queensland as recently as 1992; in Arizona as recently as 1968), and then rolled back. None of these rollbacks were related to World War II. Most people would consider South Korea and Taiwan to be industrialized countries; they no longer observe DST either. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had time to study all the countries that are marked as DST no longer used used, but a quick study of the African countries for instance reveals that South Africa, Lesotho and Botswana implemented DST for a single summer during World War II. At the time all three these countries still had strong links with Britain and were allies against Nazi Germany. As Namibia was at that time administered by South Africa the practice was also at the time used there, Namibia has since its independence from South Africa in 1990 re-implemented DST. The article on Indian Standard Time also mentions that "DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962 and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971." It was therefore never a general adoption of DST which was later rejected; it was as in the Southern African countries mentioned before something that was used during war time and never tried afterwards - probably due to India being fairly close to the equator. laurens ( talk) 09:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this latest comment contradicts anything that I wrote. Perhaps we are coming to agreement? DST often starts as an experiment during wartime or other energy crisis; that is how DST started in Britain, for example. However, if people don't like DST, they typically revert to standard time after the crisis is over. Including China, I'd guess that less than half of the people at South Africa's distance from the equator observe DST, so it shouldn't be surprising that South Africa does not observe DST either. Given that its neighbor Namibia does observe DST, I also wouldn't be surprised if DST is controversial within South Africa. Eubulides ( talk) 17:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are continuing questions here over whether DST is controversial, I made this change to add a citation supporting the fact that DST can be controversial and has caused controversy since it began. Eubulides ( talk) 03:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I now find a nice reference to this view as well: "Daylight Saving Time (DST) is an accepted part of our lifestyle in much of the world." [2]. laurens ( talk) 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a random website is a particularly good reference, nor do I want this article to decay into a series of duelling opinions ("DST is good"! "DST is bad"!). Unsupported pro- and anti- opinions about DST are neither useful nor that interesting; if they are to go anywhere, they belong in the "Politics" section, and the citation that you mention wouldn't add anything to it. Eubulides ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the #NPOV section but don't see how that supports your argument that the article is now NPOV. Two comments by anonymous users complaining that a section on criticisms against DST has been dropped and relating personal anecdotes hardly settles the matter. I was going through the featured articles on the English wikipedia and was interested to see that the DST article was recently featured. This prompted me to read the article and reading it with fresh eyes I was surprised at the weight that was given to the downsides to DST. The fact that DST is implemented in so many countries and states by democratically elected governments is probably sufficient indication that the attention given to detractors of DST is not "in proportion to the prominence of" the view. laurens ( talk) 08:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The #NPOV section does not claim that the article is NPOV. It claims that the article is biased in favor of DST. The question whether the article is actually biased will never be "settled" no matter how much is written on this talk page; there will always be some people who dislike DST, and some who like it, and any reasonably-neutral article will be criticized by both sides. The fact that most people in the world do not observe DST suggests that the article should not automatically give more prominence to the pro-DST side than to the anti-. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

POV bias

I have now had the opportunity to analyse the article in a bit more detail. Herewith a few reasons why I believe the article does not meet wikipedia NPOV requirement:

1. The article contains 64 statements that are negative about DST as opposed to 24 positive statements. This does not represent 64 against 24 arguments but rather tries to influence the reader through repetition.

Well, what do you expect? DST has very few positive qualities. It's only logical that in a serious debate, it won't hold up to scrutiny. 76.205.104.252 ( talk)

1. • Details, please. Exactly how are you counting? Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   I printed the article and underlined every statement that cast DST in a negative light in red and underlined every statement that cast DST in a positive light in black. It would be bit messy to replicate that in the actual article or in the talk page - I will try to see if there is a way to illustrate my assessment electronically - esp since you seem serious about engaging about the issue and given your past efforts on the article. laurens ( talk) 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

2. In addition to the 64 negative statements the article on at least 5 occasions makes more subtle negative allusions through word choice and negative phrasing such as associating DST with "lobbying" "arguments" etc.
   • Details again, please. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Similar to above - Made a star next to these occurrences. Will see ho I can convey these as well. laurens ( talk) 13:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

3. In the whole article only one explicitly positive statement about DST is made that is not qualified by a negative statement immediately following it - the positive statement is in the politics section where it is stated that "More recent economic theory suggests that general agreement about the day's layout confers so many advantages that a standard DST schedule usually outranks ad hoc efforts to get up earlier, even for people who personally dislike the DST schedule.[67]"
   • There are other places with unchallenged positive statements. For example, " Public safety" says "In 1995 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimated a reduction of 1.2%, including a 5% reduction in crashes fatal to pedestrians. Others have found similar reductions." and then moves on to the next topic without challenging these points. More generally, the article consciously attempts to cover DST topic by topic, and this organization naturally puts pro- and anti- opinions close to each other. That hardly counts as evidence of bias per se. Certainly there are sections ( Public safety being one example) where the pro- side is much stronger than the anti-. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   You may be right that the topic by topic outline naturally lends itself to a statement - refutation organisation. Although the article does sort of move to a different topic in the case you sight the following sentence does seem to negate the traffic safety benefits "A correlation between clock shifts and accidents has been observed in North America but not in Sweden." right after the positive statement is made. The question is whether we should lend any weight to the American study or go with the apparent consensus that DST contributes to traffic safety. We could then point this out in the introduction and make that the starting point of this discussion and only provide the descenting study as a caution that DST should not be seen as panacea to traffic accidents. laurens ( talk) 13:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   There's a reason the article takes up the clock-shift topic next; it's because many DST opponents mention clock shifts and accidents. But the article makes quick work of that objection, noting that it's not clear whether the problem exists, and that even if it does exist the effect is dwarfed by the safety improvement of extra afternoon daylight. It's plausible that traffic patterns in Sweden are sufficiently different from those in North America so that DST helps in North America but not in Sweden, so I don't think we should simply ignore the Swedish result. Nor do I think that this sort of detail should be in the lead. The lead should be high level. Eubulides ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Most positive statements are weakened by immediate qualification of the positive aspect of DST through language such as "but...".
   • That's a natural consequence of the article's topic-by-topic organization. I suppose we could always put the anti- side first, but that would be a bit weird; the usual pattern is pro- and then anti-. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Many negative statements are reinforced through multiple examples - whereas positive statements are generally left open-ended leaving the reader feeling that perhaps that statement is not really true when she contrasts that with the negative statements that are so well motivated.
   • Examples, please? Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
6. The most obscure objections to DST are included in a way that is not similarly balanced where positive aspects are concerned - as an example, does it really matter that sundials don't generally work when DST is implemented ("DST inherits and can magnify the disadvantages of standard time. For example, when reading a sundial, one must compensate for it along with time zone and natural discrepancies")?
   • I wouldn't mind losing that example, as I think it's a bit stretched as well. It's there only because another editor wanted it. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
7. The article systematically associates DST with what could be seen as somewhat frivolous pursuits such as golf and with bogey men such as the fastfood industry whereas arguments against DST is associated with hard working farmers and other long suffering workers that now have to rise early to earn there living. This is done without considering the merits or currency of these arguments - the National farmers Union in the UK is for example now neutral about DST.
   • Golf is not frivolous; at least, it's not frivolous to serious golfers. And afternoon recreation is an important motivation for DST; it's the primary justification in Willett's original proposal. Omitting golf would do the article serious injustice. Omitting farmers would harm the historical section; farmers were the principal reason DST was repealed after World War I. I agree that farmers no longer oppose DST as strongly as they used to; adding a citation to that effect, with a reliable source, would improve the article. Eubulides ( talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   OK - I think we agree here - it may be that I read it this way because of the other issues. If you agree I will add a reference regarding the historic nature of the farming community's opinion and how this is dealt with in Scandinavian countries for example. laurens ( talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   Some mention of farmers' weakening opposition would be appropriate, but the article should not go overboard in the opposite direction. My impression from looking at primary sources is that farmers by and large still are not in favor of DST. It's just that DST is not as big a deal as it used to be (farmers can work around many of the problems with artificial lighting, for example) and that they would rather spend their valuable political chits elsewhere. Eubulides ( talk) 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

laurens ( talk) 09:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with December 12 edits

These edits to the article have some improvements, but also some drawbacks, as follows:

• The changes add too much verbiage to the lead. The lead should be concise and easy to follow.

  I disagree but will see if I can achive the same objective with less verbiage. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The changes introduce points and citations in the lead that are not summaries of what occurs in the body of the article. This is contrary to Wikipedia style (see WP:LEAD). I am not sure that the new points and citations belong in the body, but they certainly don't belong in the lead by themselves.

  It only introduced the fact the energy saving remains an important motivator for implementation and extension of DST - I will address it in the body as it a serious weakness if this is not currently the case and then reintroduce that to the introduction. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  The most important thing, from the point of view of this article, is whether DST actually saves energy. Of secondary interest is the the use of energy-saving arguments as part of the politics of DST. The former belongs in the energy-saving section; the latter in the politics section. I will try to track down the references you've added and see what they say about the situation. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  I read the abstract of Fong et al. 2007 ( doi: 10.3130/jaabe.6.371), the first study. I do not have easy access to that paper; do you? At any rate, from its abstract it appears that its result agrees with that of Shimoda et al. 2007 ( doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2007.01.007) which is already cited. I'm not sure it's worth citing both papers, since Shimoda et al. 2007 covers all residential energy use (not just lighting) and appears to be of higher quality, but in the meantime I made this change so that the two results are discussed right next to each other. Eubulides ( talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  I made this change to try to capture a small part of the good ideas in the December 12 edit. Eubulides ( talk) 07:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• The new statement "some studies have indicated positive effects on health and crime reduction" is a misleading summary of both the body and of what reliable sources say. Daylight saving time #Health cites 4 studies on health, of which 3 are negative. If you research the literature you'll find that this is not out of line for what reliable sources are reporting. Daylight saving time #Public safety makes it clear that the sole study claiming crime reduction benefits was extremely weak; it is mentioned in that section only because it is cited so often by DST proponents.

  Will have a look but have a feeling that the references were sourced a little selectively to support the POV that you seem to be wanting to introduce. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The changes attempt to restructure that part of the lead to put all of the pro- material at the start of the paragaph, and all the anti- at the end. This is not a good way to format the article; it takes it in the direction of being a debate rather than being an encyclopedia entry. The lead should cover topics one by one, it should not do two passes over the topics, one pro- and one anti-.

  I was trying to address a weakness of the article away from debate to a more encyclopaedic style rather than a to-and-throw about negative and positive points. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  Some articles on controversial subjects separate themselves into two main sections, one pro- and the other anti-. Vaccine controversy is one example. These articles are weaker, because what happens is the pro- editors edit the pro- section, and the anti- editors edit the anti- section, and it degenerates from an encyclopedia into a shouting match. Much better is to discuss each actual subtopic one by one, the way an encyclopedia would, and mention everything relevant to that subtopic, the way that (say) Abortion does. This is the way Daylight saving time is organized, and I don't want it to drift back into the other form. (There have been efforts to improve Vaccine controversy's organization but they haven't succeeded yet.) The change that we're talking about separated the paragraph into pro- and anti- halves, each half discussing several topics. This is the wrong direction to head: the topics should be addressed one by one. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For now, I fixed the above problems with this change; we can discuss whether the new points and citations belong in the body in this talk page. Eubulides ( talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record - you didn't fix problems, you basically changed the article back to the way you like it. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That was pending further discussion, which we are doing here. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dec. 12 change also introduced into a caption of the "Notes" section a discussion about the benefits of DST. In this article "Notes" is not for discussions about DST in general; it is merely for bibligraphic issues. I made this change accordingly. Eubulides ( talk) 00:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm -I don't think that was done - I adapted the caption which I thoughts was POV loaded to a more accurate description of the actual situation. laurens ( talk) 09:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That may have been the intent, but what I saw was the discussion of why DST is a good idea bleeding into the citation itself. The goal in the "Notes" section right now is to talk only about the citations, not about the argument. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dec. 12 changes added text implying that Britain was the second belligerent in Europe to adopt DST during World War I. This is incorrect. I don't see why the exact date of Britain's adoption is that relevant to this article, so I fixed that part of the change for now. Eubulides ( talk) 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it incorrect - who after the German Allies were the second belligerent to adopt DST? Are you disputing the date, which is what I added, or the fact that Britain followed Germany, Austria etc. - this was already implied in the way the section was structured and is not due to my change?

The Turks came after the Germans but before the British. There were others. I am not disputing the date of the British adoption; it's just that I don't think it's important enough to include here. If the article mentions the British date, why not the Turkish and the others? The article should not be derailed by these relatively minor details; they are better suited for articles like British Summer Time. Eubulides ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dec. 12 changes inserted text about the benefits brought about by coordination that are a reasonable point, but are backwards from the main result of the cited source. The cited source (Hamermesh et al. 2006) says that other sources of time information (e.g., television programs) cause people to ignore whether or not DST is in effect, which means that choice of DST was relatively ineffective as a means of coordination. The point about coordination was covered under "Politics"; see its citation to Schelling (which is by far the more influential on this point). It does make sense to cover the advantage of coordination under "Benefits and drawbacks" rather than "Politics", so I made this change to move the Schelling citation and associated text there, and to rework the text conderning to Hamermesh et al. so that it matches the source better. Also, I updated the citation to Hamermesh et al. as they have a new version out. Eubulides ( talk) 21:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Daylight saving time #References to popular culture section should be removed. Until 2007-03-19 the article had a section called "Cultural references", but Wikipedia:Peer review/Daylight saving time #bcasterline suggested that it should be removed as per WP:TRIV. references The older version had a far-superior "Cultural references" section, which I've copied for everybody's amusement below, but this material isn't suited for this encyclopedia article either. Eubulides 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• The musical standard "(There Ought to Be a) Moonlight Saving Time" by Irving Kahal and Harry Richman was a #1 hit for Guy Lombardo in 1931, and was also performed by Maurice Chevalier, Blossom Dearie and others. Moonlight saving time also appears in the 1995 country song "Not Enough Hours in the Night" written by Aaron Barker, Kim Williams and Rob Harbin and performed by Doug Supernaw.
• Despite Indiana's then-lack of DST, Marshall changes his clock with unusual consequences in "The Lost Hour". Eerie, Indiana. Episode 10. 1991-12-01. NBC.
• The two Petes travel back in time an hour on the day that DST ends in "Time Tunnel". The Adventures of Pete & Pete. Season 2. Episode 5. 1994-10-23. Nickelodeon.
• Homer, working from home, remarks "8:58, first time I've ever been early for work. Except for all those daylight savings days. Lousy farmers." In "King-Size Homer". The Simpsons. Episode 135. 1995-11-05.
• Coldplay's Grammy-winning record " Clocks" ( 2003) was co-written and performed by Chris Martin, great-great-grandson of DST inventor William Willett. ^[1] In what may be a fluke, the song's first line is "Lights go out and I can't be saved".

After I wrote the above, it appears that someone else agreed with the sentiment and removed that section. Eubulides 03:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For official/medical/technical notation of time during the November time switch, how is the first 1:00-2:00 period differentiated from the second? -- 69.118.139.30 21:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any international standard. I have heard that in Germany they use "A" and "B" after the times, but I don't know whether that's a standard or just a local custom. I think the usual practice in the U.S., when people care, is to use abbreviations like "EST" or "EDT" after the time, or perhaps UTC offsets like "-0500" or "-0400". Or, you can just specify the time in UTC (see the end of this paragraph). I don't know about other English-speaking countries. Eubulides 23:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Made a small change in the terminology section to include common usage of daylight time. PDST may be a formal acronym(unsure of that), but PDT is commonly used and commonly spelled out as Pacific Daylight Time. This crosses all of the timezones as far as i know. Bhcompy 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked, and the "PDST" claim was added by User:12.32.89.121 here, with a comment saying it's the "more proper nomenclature" but without a reliable source. Google reports that almost nobody uses "PDST" in practice, and I couldn't find any support for the claim that "PDST" is formally correct. So for now I removed mention of PDST. Eubulides 00:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It also fits with the format used in the Pacific Time Zone wiki page as well to match the example. Bhcompy 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the introduction, [DST clockshifts] serve as twice-yearly fire safety reminders.. I've never heard about this before, and the sentence confused me a bit (I had to check up the reference). I don't think this is an essential feature nor advantage of DST per se, and I think it's well enough covered in the Public safety-section, so I will remove it from the introduction. tobixen 08:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No doubt it can use better wording. But I don't understand the point of the rest of the comment; I'm afraid it sounds a bit like "I didn't know about that, so it must not be important". The lead is supposed to summarize the body, and if the body covers the topic significantly, then the lead should mention it too; this is true even if the body covers the topic "well enough". It is true that one can have DST without having fire safety reminders, but that is true for a good chunk of the lead already: why is fire safety less important than the other topics? Sports are not "essential" to DST, for example, but the lead mentions sports. Isn't fire safety at least as important as sports? Eubulides 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports and retail are significant either as rationale or for lobbying through the DST; fire safety reminders are not really dependent on the DST. The lead of the article should summarize the most important things about the topic, it does not need to summarize everything written in the article (there is a TOC for that). Which countries are having "fire safety reminder campaigns" related to the DST clock shift anyway? tobixen 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The list of countries doing campaigns like this include the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, France, and the Netherlands; see Talk:Daylight saving time#Associated practices are regional?. The list also includes Canada, of course; see, for example this news item by the Canadian Technical Standards and Safety Authority and this one from the Montreal fire department and Quebec Public Security. Google News currently reports 219 news articles matching the query "daylight saving batteries smoke" so the topic certainly does get reported often in the mainstream press. Finally, I don't understand the argument about fire safety not being "dependent" on the DST. Strictly speaking, nothing is "dependent" on the DST, as obviously many countries get along fine without DST. But fire safety is a topic that is very frequently associated with DST, so it's a relevant subject for this article and its lead. I don't see what being "dependent" has to do with it. Eubulides 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No further comment, so for now I put the fire-safety point back in the lead, reworded to make it shorter and (I hope) clearer. It's now down to 8 words in the lead, which I hope is brief enough: "… can serve as fire safety reminders, but they …". For more discussion of this issue please see Talk:Daylight saving time #Clock shifts as reminders above. Eubulides 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This change gives undue weight to Stanley Coren's work on DST and traffic accidents. First, Coren's work is a decade old and has been superseded by work from Varughese & Allen 2001 ( PMID  11152980), Coate & Markowitz 2004 ( PMID  15003579), and Lambe & Cummings 2000 ( PMID  10868764), all of which are already cited in Daylight saving time. Second, the same result of Coren is being cited twice, once as a conference proceedings and once as a New England Journal of Medical piece; the NEJM source is higher-quality and should stay. Third, Coren's results have been seriously disputed (see PMID  8668225, PMID  8668226, PMID  8668227) and the details of his claims should not be reproduced here without giving a balanced view, but that balanced view would require a large quantity of text that would give undue weight to this subtopic. I suppose it's OK to cite Coren but he should not be given more weight than the recent, higher-quality work. Unless there's a better suggestion I'm inclined to revert the change. Eubulides 17:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One possible fix would be to cite the more-authoritative but less-free NEJM work along with Coren's conference paper. That is, replace this:

It is not clear whether sleep disruption contributes to fatal accidents immediately after the spring and autumn clock shifts, although Stanley Coren's 1998 study of ten years of US traffic safety records finds a 17% increase in fatalities on the first Monday of DST (relative to the Monday before and after) but only a 3% reduction on the first Monday following the return to standard time.<ref>{{cite web|title=INABIS '98 - Sleep Deficit, Fatal Accidents, and the Spring Shift to Daylight Savings Time|url=http://www.mcmaster.ca/inabis98/occupational/coren0164/two.html|quote= ... following the spring shift to Daylight Savings Time (when one hour of sleep is lost) there is a measureable increase in the number of traffic accidents that result in fatalies.}}</ref>

with this:

It is not clear whether sleep disruption contributes to fatal accidents immediately after the spring and autumn clock shifts.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= N Engl J Med |date=1998 |volume=339 |issue=16 |pages=1167-8 |title= Effects of daylight savings time on collision rates |author= Alex Vincent |coauthors= Stanley Coren |pmid=9776656}} Data supporting Coren's half of this exchange are in: {{cite conference |author= Stanley Coren |booktitle= INABIS '98 |title= Sleep deficit, fatal accidents, and the spring shift to daylight savings time |url=http://www.mcmaster.ca/inabis98/occupational/coren0164/ |date=1998}}</ref>

Eubulides 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No further comments so I made that change. Eubulides 04:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

is there an initiative to amend the page and graphics with the change of DST policy for ARgentina? 192.85.47.12 ( talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Eubulides ( talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6