Talk:Sunshine Protection Act

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Sunshine Protection Act would make daylight saving time in the United States become permanent? Source: A group of bipartisan senators is reintroducing a bill that would make Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent.
  • ALT1:... that the Sunshine Protection Act, which would make U.S. daylight saving time become permanent, was inspired by research that the annual time jumps cause more heart attacks and traffic collisions? Source: Scientists have found that, on the Monday after daylight saving starts, heart attacks and traffic accidents are more numerous, judges dole out harsher sentences, and employees are more likely to “cyberloaf” on the Internet.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Concrete bus shelters in Canberra
• Comment: I lean toward ALT1, even if it is a little wordy.

Converted from a redirect by Sdkb (talk). Self-nominated at 01:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC).

• @Sdkb: New enough and long enough conversion. QPQ present. Hook fact checks out, and source is in article. First paragraph needs to end in an inline citation, and there is a {{specify}} tag in the second section; both need to be fixed before approval. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sammi Brie, references added to the first paragraph. For the specify tag, that came about since it appears that Rubio has not formally filed the senate version yet. I made that clear; let me know if this needs any other fixes. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I kind of thought had happened. Issues addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Dubious Claims/Citations and Poor Neutrality

The present state of this article supposedly details the "ill effects of standard time compared to daylight saving time" in the Background section. However, these points are dubious at best. Some of the cited sources even contradict the content of this article.

A larger article, Permanent time observation in the United States, has a far more accurate description of the debate concerning daylight time versus standard time. I think, therefore, that the brief, inaccurate information in this article should be largely removed in favor of the other one.

Some examples of inaccurate citations:

• "more frequent traffic incidents, increased prevalence of seasonal depression" - The citation to NPR doesn't state this as a given. Rather, it is Senator Marco Rubio, quoted, arguing for daylight savings time. Surely, the sponsor of the bill itself is not a neutral point of view nor a reliable source, and therefore it is improper to cite Rubio on the purported benefits of daylight time.
• "greater energy usage" - The cited New Yorker article flat-out contradicts this by saying "It’s not even clear that daylight-saving time saves energy".

I'm planning to rework the Background section to clear up these inaccuracies. Additionally, I thought it would be sensible to include a section on opposition to the bill. There is much information here in favor of the Sunshine Protection Act but no talk of the downsides. It would be worth clarifying the distinction between debate over the clock change versus between standard/daylight time.

A248 (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Doctors in sleep-related specialties have stated the opposite, that daylight time has the ill effects compared to standard time. See American Academy of Sleep Medicine position here: https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8780

2001:4898:A800:1012:B04A:AFBD:1198:C4FB (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Seconded as well. The article presents a one-sided argument that research has shown standard time is very bad. The primary citation is to an article in Wake Forest Law Review which argues emphatically for permanent DST; other citations are largely to Wall Street Journal and National Public Radio; and actual medical organizations relying heavily on the empirical evidence, such as the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, support permanent standard time and oppose permanent DST. As someone who holds a degree in public policy and international affairs, I am familiar with the specific purpose of advocacy pieces, and in particular that they are generally to avoid presenting any evidence contrary to the position being advocated; as well as the balance fallacy by which a position with heavy support by professionals and other experts is presented as being equally balanced by fringe positions or those of non-professionals. This is not encyclopedic. John Moser (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at both claims that were tagged with {{Failed verification}} and either improved the referencing or altered the language (in the case of reduced energy usage, where the article was indeed unsupported by the ref; I changed it to say that the research is unclear, adding a new high-quality ref). The tags are resolved now. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

While your changes are welcome and much appreciated, they are insufficient to address the primary cause of my concern. The poorly cited claims, which you addressed, were partly the issue. However, the main problem with Sunshine Protection Act is its omission of information favorable to permanent standard time.

• The article Permanent time observation in the United States contains a thorough discussion of standard/daylight time. This article is comprehensive and objective.
• Sunshine Protection Act withers in comparison: it presents DST favorably and ST unfavorably. This slanted characterization is the problem in Sunshine Protection Act which remains unresolved.

For example Permanent time observation states "Permanent standard time is considered by circadian health researchers and safety experts worldwide to be the best option for health, safety, schools, and economy" followed by a list of reputable organizations endorsing this conclusion. Sunshine Protection Act does not mention this information but rather communicates the "ill effects of standard time compared to daylight saving time." A248 (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well this article has fallen in the opposite direction now! It has several paragraphs and numerous citations arguing for standard time, but only a couple of sentences and citations in favor of DST. This suggests a greater consensus than actually exists.Jtrnp (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)