Jump to content

Talk:Daylight saving time

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.174.142.39 (talk) at 13:30, 30 November 2006 (style: the word "experience"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:FAOL


Discussion through June 2006

The world map is incorrect

I have noticed an inconsistency between the article and the world map. The article says South Korea used to observe DST but on the map South Korea is marked red. Also Japan did used to observe DST between 1948 and 1951.--oklahoman7 07:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section "Japan" to the main article. Can someone update the map to reflect this?--oklahoman7 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its been changed to orange now, along with Taiwan, Western Australia & the rest of former USSR--Astrokey44 10:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The legend for the world map currently includes this text: "Areas that have never observed daylight saving time (incorrect - Arizona briefly observed DST in the 1960's, but then repealed it)". That parenthetical comment does NOT belong in the legend, and I am removing it. The place to point out such errors and discuss how to correct them is here, on the article's Talk page. Pat Berry 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Money on Electricity??

In the Arizona section.... "An extra hour of sunlight would cause people to run their cooling systems longer, thereby using more energy." This statement needs elaboration. I don't believe this needs elaboration. I believe it needs to be removed. There is not an extra hour of daylight anywhere no matter what the clock says. People don't adjust their thermostats based on the arbitrary numbers to which the hands on their clocks are pointing. I don't have a survey to back this but I don't know anyone that change their thermostat before and after work.

I don't have a cite, but it seems reasonable that people would use programable thermostats that runs off the time to save energy. I've used a programmable thermostat and I reset the time when DST changes.. —Cliffb 04:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I change the time on my thermostat, but it still is set for the same temperature for the same length of time. I can see a couple sides of the argument. On one side, I may pay a little extra on my home A/C bill if I need to cool a little more while the sun is up. It takes more energy to cool every home for an hour in the evening than to cool every business for an hour in the evening, and energy spent on A/C is a significant percentage of total energy usage.
On the other hand, my office's bill should drop slightly if they can turn off the A/C earlier. The extra home A/C bill only affects those of us with programmable thermostats that have programmed them. Also, if one family member stays home all day, the A/C will be on all day, and you'll get no extra cost at home, but could get savings at the office. Some detailed analysis of how much more energy is used/saved would be nice.
Anyway, I just overhauled the paragraph to make clearer what the A/C rationale was. I removed the whole Arizona thing because there was no cite, and I didn't believe it. Arizona probably had several reasons for not using daylight time, all captured in that criticism section. Derekt75 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Map Error - Indiana

The map shows that Indiana never observed DST. That's not true - they just switched.

Argentina: Mistake

The map shows Argentina as a country that never used DST. That is wrong. It was used for several years, then discontinued, then put again in place. It's not being used now but there are some talks about going back to it.

Map Mistake - Dominican Republic

Dominican Republic has observed DST during the 1970s, and also attempted to observe DST during 2000. DST lasted 1 month in D.R., and was then set back to normal time due to public uproar. -- Zavreio 05:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV Alert - Opposition to Daylight Saving Time

The section on opposition is huge in proportion to the section about DST itself. While there are some who disagree with DST, this is a small minority of people; the article has warped into a diatribe against DST, which is to say propound an anti-DST POV. Does anyone else out there agree that it should be balanced correctly? At the very least, the "anti" arguments should come last, as the article is about DST, not about "anti-DST" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsevolod4 (talkcontribs) 09:49, October 19, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that section is poorly written, rambles and possibly a beat up. For example, how significant is the reported spike in road accidents? --Merbabu 01:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the "spike" in road accidents statement for the following reason: If the argument is that by getting 1 hour less sleep in the spring, drivers are groggy and get in more accidents, then it would follow that if drivers get 1 additional hour of sleep in the fall, then we should see a corresponding drop in auto accidents in the fall. Further, the time change happens on a Sunday, so people have a day to adjust before the vast majority of auto travel happens on Monday. --presto8 2006-10-29
Your argument does not follow unless you also can demonstrate that people get insufficient sleep on a chronic basis, which I'll grant is likely true, and that the likelihood of causing a fatal accident due to lack of sleep follows a linear response, which is somewhat less likely to be true. RandyKaelber 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just speculating, but maybe there are more accidents when DST begins due to the impatient drivers who are one hour late because they forgot to change the clock? Itub 14:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding DST-related spike in road accidents: check this (see 'Results' section). Makes a good argument for a) the presence of a DST-related increase in accidents and b) cause of said accidents being disruption of regular sleep schedules as opposed to forgetful clock-adjusters rushing to appointments. Also, if it were maladjusted clocks that were the problem, I think you'd see a spike lasting only one day but from what I've heard the spike lasts about a week (need to track down citations here). I agree, though, on the POV alert. Presumably there's a benefit, if not real then at least perceived, that's caused most temperate regions to adopt DST. mandersen

Western Australia

This line was added to the section about the current DST legislation in the Western Australian parliament: "Many Western Australians against DST have cried out against the trial, as there have been three referendums to date". Does this violate NPOV? I've added another sentence with the other side to the argument to try and balance it. -Jasonb 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously support Daylight saving. leave my colck alone dont harras it. Auroranorth

Yes, I do support it. I don't see how my opinion changes anything I had to say though. -Jasonb 11:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just deleted the following from the end of the paragraph about the WA daylight saving trial: "Three previous referenda on daylight savings in Western Australia have all failed. The reasons for these past rejections are geographical and political. The majority of West Australians reside north of latitude 33° south and so the benefits of extended daylight hours are not as great for them as for people in the other southern Australian states. Likewise, most West Australians live near the west coast at around longitude 115° east. The longitude that represents +8 hr GMT (120° east) is located over 400 km to the east in thinly populated desert regions. This means that the majority of West Australians are benefited by close to 20 minutes daylight saving year round." I don't think this is relevant on a page about DST around the world. If anywhere, it should go in the relevant section of Time in Australia. That said, I don't think a discussion of the reasons against (or for, for that matter) is necessary, and if it is deemed to be relevant, the above seems to violate NPOV (that could just be how I read it though). -Jasonb 09:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA (untitled) Table of Time Zones confusing (to me, anyhow)

Apologies if this comment is improper, but I found the table near the middle of the "United States" section to be confusing.
It's clear to me (although unstated) that the table elements are offsets to GMT.
But what are the parenthetical numbers?
If they are hh:mm, why are they all ending in "52"?
Some indication of what these numbers represent would be helpful.
Oybobby 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC) oybobby[reply]

According to Template:utc, which is called by Template:US time 2006, they are the current local time in 24-hour format for the listed US time zones, which I have added to the template. — Joe Kress 17:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one that noticed?

The graphic courtesy of some DOD employee of the clock hands being turned back has the caption advising that the time change occurs at 2am on October 28th. Unfortunately, the graphic was created in 2005 when that was true, but this year it is 2am on October 29th!

Criticism

the criticism regarding morning time being switched for evening time makes little sense to me. During summer/spring in England it is light well before 6 am, so actually it makes no difference to such early-risers that morning light is switched for evening. Even with DST it is light well before normal rising hours. The sun has already started rising at almost 4:30 am in the height of summer

Hateful Polemic

The following was deleted for being "irrelevant, polemic meant to instigate hatred":

In territories controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, terrorists were transporting a bomb that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bomb went off while the bomb was still being transported, killing the terrorists (and earning them a Darwin Award).[1]

Please discuss before deleting this again. It well illustrates the some of the problems critics have with DST.

If necessary, I can edit it to make it less Hate-instigating. A few examples:

  1. In territories controlled by the loving Palestinian National Peace-out, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, peace activists were lovingly transporting a bomb that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bomb went off while the bomb was still being transported, killing the kind, loving activists, and depriving them of the opportunity to show their love to the hateful Israelis. It also earned them a posthumous Noble Pieces Prize.
  2. In territories controlled by the Palestinian Floral Authority, DST ends later, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, Palestinian peace workers were lovingly transporting a bouquet that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time, which was an hour ahead. As a result, the bouquet went off while the bouquet was still being transported, covering the kind, loving peace workers with pollen (and earning them a Allergen Award).
  3. In territories controlled by the Hebrew National Authority, DST ends earlier, which can lead to some confusion. On September 5, 1999, Hebrew terrorists were transporting a bomb to Palestine that they mistakenly thought was set to go off at 5:30 PM Palestinian Daylight Time; it was actually set for 5:30 PM Israel Standard Time, which was an hour behind. As a result, the bomb went off an hour later, killing more people than they had anticipated (and earning them a Kosher Award).

--BillCJ 06:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no documentation of energy or commercial impact

Something very weird is going on not just in this article but in science / the web in general --- how can it be that so many countrys have DST, and yet there seems to be no scientific results or studies on what the economic impact is? First, every year we should get statistics about how it impacts energy usage at the time of change-over, and second, some countries and states start and stop using it, so we should by now have some idea of whether there is commercial impact from year to year. But everything I found that claims to document this also claims that a later report overturned it, and they all seemed to be government documents anyway, not something in the scientific literature.

If I were Hilary Clinton I'd wonder if there was a vast energy-producers conspiracy to whallop any results showing how useful DST is. I mean, if that's not the story, then why is its acceptance so widespread? Who does benefit from having the time fluctuate if there's no measurable benefit to the population?

The one possible explanation I found in about 40 minutes of research was that about 66% of people like daylight savings time. So maybe it's just democracy / quality of life, we like seeing as much daylight as possible. However, again, I didn't find that in an original source so I haven't referenced it here.--Jaibe 10:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

66% of people might 'like' DST, but how many dislike standard time? Probably it depends where in the time zone you are (western edge vs eastern edge) whether you would find ST/DST sunrise too late/early, ST/DST sunset too early/late. Myself, I would rather be on DST hours year-round. Summer with DST gives Calgary,AB,Canada a daylight range of 5:30am-10:00pm, whereas winter with ST gives us daylight range of 8:30am-4:30pm. Since it's basically still dark/darkish when most people are starting out their winter days (between 8 and 9, on average), what's the point of making it dark while you're still at work at 4:30? If it was light 9:30-5:30, then we could have truly dark on the way in, and still-some-light on the way home. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of some sample latitudes, east-west positions relative to time zone boundaries, and a few typical schedules (FT work, shift work, night shift, schools, farms) to see who time-change affects how. Mandersen

DST in India

As far as I know DST was in practice in India briefly during the World War II and during China and Pakistan wars as well.

Does this article need {{split-apart}}

I clicked "edit the page" and saw that the article is 56 KB long. That is probably due to the long list of countries there. So I was wondering if it needs a tab like this one? Does it sound alright? --Gh87 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the history portion for the us is not complete

See the article at http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/e.html for information about the April date change in the mid-80's and the 15-month exercise in the 70's so that the statement about since 1966 it's been these dates isn't correct.

DST in Brazil

I noticed that the article is saying that, in Brazil, DST is called Hora do Verão. That's not true, and should be corrected. In Brazil, DST is called horário de verão (Summer Time).

Map mistake: Libya

The map shows Libya as never having observed DST, but in fact, it did, from 1981 to 1990, and then again from 1996 to 1997 (don't ask, it is an odd country). Who owns the map? Can they fix it?

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone.html?n=252&syear=1980

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/timezone.html?n=252&syear=1990

Splitting Location Section

I have suggested splitting the section containing the practice of daylight saving time around the world into its article. The section is taking up far too much space in this article, and I feel the article should really just concentrate on the idea of daylight-saving time itself. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree: I support this for the reasons given above. Care will have to be taken, as there are references to this section throughout the article. In addition, shortened versions of some paragraphs might be retained as examples within the article. -- BillCJ 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will proceed with splitting the article in Dec., if no objections have been put forth be that time. It's just WAY too long. Thanks. - BillCJ 16:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the current section takes up way too much space. I'm wondering if it's worth having one article for everywhere in the world though, when there are also separate pages about time/DST in various countries. At the moment there's a lot of repeated/redundant information in this section, which is also in article called "Time in _____" (and sometimes inconsistent). Maybe we should just have a list of these articles that we link to? I'd be happy with either solution though. -Jasonb 16:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a option too. However, not all countries regions have articles, so I think there still should be one location with information on all the countries. Correlating this information with the existing pages should be done, but it would be quite extensive. Perhaps the country pages could be combined by continent/regionwith links to the region pages here, but again that's quite a job. For now, I think the simplest thing to do would be to split off this article now, while discussing a future solution too. - BillCJ 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, okay, I'm happy with that. -Jasonb 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone created the article anyway, apparently by just cut-and-pasting the whole section in, with no attempt at formatting it for its own article. When we do get a consensus here (or at least no opposition) by the end of the week, I'll make a fresh copy with all the recent edits, and format it properly. - BillCJ 15:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who suggested it be merged with Harassment?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the two as highly related, so maybe we could nix that idea? I just don't know how to delete it personally.

Onceuponastar 12:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently,it was not a serious suggestion, but rather some form of vandalism. Also, the 4 notices he posted were removed from the article over 24 hours ago. Is it posted somewhere else? - BillCJ 14:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

style: the word "experience"

"would have experienced the latest sunrises of the year during the month of November," I find that the verb "to experience" is misused a lot, bad style, and often literally incorrect. In the quoted case, there *is* a late sunrise, whether there is anyone present and awake to "experience" it or not.