Talk:Sugary drinks portion cap rule

Article title: Which is better?

"New York soda ban" or the current "New York City soft drink size limit"? I moved the article because "soda ban" is a misleading title, and this law is for New York City not New York state. WP:CRITERIA requires conciseness and precision. Arbor to SJ (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I doubt many others will be available to comment as this article is only linked from a small handful of Wikipedia articles, and because topic isn't in news any more (though it most likely will be once Bloomberg appeals). Anyway, I chose the title based on the section of that policy page right under CRITERIA, being WP:UCN. Anyway, this policy page clearly dictates things not to title articles, but doesn't state that an article title must be the most recognizable, natural, or precise choice.

Yet the policy does give this:

"The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists."

Therefore I believe that the interests and knowledge of the general public is largely based upon what they have heard in the news media, which is why 'New York soda ban', while not without its flaws, is a better title. And the policy WP:UCN also states this:

"The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name, or the trademarked name."

And the reliable sources that I used in this article predominantly use the term 'soda ban', not 'soft drink size limit'. Now I would be fine with a compromise of titling it 'New York City large-size soda ban', which includes several elements of your current title. 'Ban' is better than 'limit' because the article describes a ban, and Bloomberg was proposing a ban. The term 'limit' (or 'soft drink', for that matter) appears much less frequently in the headlines of reliable sources than 'ban' (or 'soda'). And Google Trends supports that.

Do you accept my proposed compromise?--ɱ (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved, per WP:NDESC. Court appeal is pending, so AfD-type discussion seems premature. Miniapolis 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

---

New York City soft drink size limit → New York City large-size soda ban – Better title that meets these guidelines from Wikipedia:CRITERIA: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." and "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name, or the trademarked name." For instance, this LA Times article calls the law a "ban". This NY Times article from 9/14/12 is called "Health Panel Approves Restriction on Sale of Large Sugary Drinks" and reports the law as: "...a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, the first restriction of its kind in the country. " Back in may 2012 the NYT reported in article "New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks." relisted Tiggerjay (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree completely.--ɱ (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to Obesity in the United States. There is no way this subject needs its own article. Apteva (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, this has been a major conflict in news and discussions, and still may be enacted. And whether enacted or not, the bill has influenced and will continue to influence policies of locations of all sizes: cities, states, and possibly even nations. This is the largest and most notable attack on obesity in the United States in the new millenium.-- (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, proposal provided a source of jokes and nothing else. Apteva (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with merging, notability is clear. Somewhat oppose move, however; honestly, I see no problem with the current title. I mean, I'm not super opposed, either one's workable, but I kind of like the first one (mostly because of the vagueness of "large-size" and the use of the word "soda" in the second). Red Slash
• Weak oppose. Yes, the popular press calls it a "ban," and I'm normally sympathetic to "common name" arguments, but for a matter of law, I'd rather be precise, and "limit" is more accurate and less sensationalistic than "ban." SnowFire (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually I agree with Apteva that this doesn't belong – it seems to me to be a manifestation of recentism. Having said that, if we are to keep this article (this is not an AfD), it just won't do to replace a correct and descriptive title with a misleading and biased one. It isn't just the word 'ban' that's problematic, the word 'large' is as well (to me, the correct word would be 'enormous'. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per SnowFire. That about covers it. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Merge to Obesity in the United States. It is supported by news reports, there is no real secondary source story about it. It belong in a context, achieved by the merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grace period for businesses to change.

The article stated that businesses had a 9 month period to change their cup sizes and adapt when it was actually a much shorter 3 month period.

I also going to change the wording of the sentence to a more general term,changing it from restaurant owners to business owners. The limit did not just affect restaurants, but affected other businesses such as sports stadiums, and movie theaters. This change greater shows the affects of the limit on the businesses. ~~alexzanderf~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexzanderf (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Health Benefits from size limits

The very heated and controversial debates over limiting the size of sugar sweetened soda in New York City that is addressed in this Wikipedia article, I feel, has a lot of room for editing as it does not provide much of the research as to how the large, high sugar drinks are contributing to increased obesity and thus the large increased in health care cost. The information supporting the devastating effect on public health is tucked away in medical journals and research papers. The money that is made by the big beverage companies is currently overshadowing the truth behind Mayor Michael Bloomberg and health officials’ passion to short circuit this growing epidemic. Many people will die this year from sugar intake related deaths. As a Registered Nurse, I feel that public health concerns should always have priority over the money lost or gained. The government needs to have regulations on processed food and drink that goes into our bodies just like they do on drugs that pharmaceutical companies provide. The government is not trying to regulate the number of apples, oranges, tomatoes, green beans, etc. the public eats, because they are not harming the public or causing health care cost to skyrocket. The government has a right to put regulations in place to stop the massive hemorrhage of money being lost because of health care issues related to obesity and poor nutrition. The Medicare and Medicaid system is failing, family are declaring bankruptcy, children are losing parents, parents are losing children, because people are making poor choices regarding their health. The statistics and the proof is there, but can the public win out over big beverage company money? If Wikipedia can reach enough people with the correct information, it just might be possible. It is my goal to edit the Wikipedia article with much more of the health benefits that could come from limiting the sugary drink size and the need for some government control for the good of the people of this country. Please give me some feedback.BaconCookies (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit was removed with the comment, "Sorry, but this is only relevant in an article on soda or its effects, not in this article, which focuses on the legislation", which was not signed. This edit supported the fact that we do need regulations thus legislation to provide health to our citizens and cut down on the high cost of caring for the growing health care crisis. Please give me some additional comments as to why this article would not benefit from more proof as to why the legislation is needed. BaconCookies (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"Which was not signed"? Do people sign their edit summaries now? In response to the content I removed: it's all information supporting why soda is not good for people, is it not? And that sort of material should be in the Wikipedia article "Soda", under its large "Health concerns" section. This article is for detailing Michael Bloomberg's campaign for soda limits in NYC, and that's it.--ɱ (talk) 03:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add some further information I found regarding other opponents.BaconCookies (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Shelley, Donna, Gbenga Ogedegbe, and Brian Elbel. "Same Strategy Different Industry: Corporate Influence on Public Policy." American journal of public health 104.4 (2014): e9-e11.

As long as they're specifically opponents to this issue and not soda proponents or opponents in general, that would be okay.--ɱ (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)