Talk:Soft drink companies to stop high school soda sales

Hello,

I am the author of the "Soft drink companies to stop high school soda sales" story. I release it to wikinews under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Thanks JLCourier 02:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to be so nit-picky, but I think we're going to need more proof then that, a notice on the website itself would be nice (if you are indeed the author, this shouldn't be an issue). Sorry, but we need to be sure that you are indeed the author.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess thanks are in order for your zealous guardianship of my copyright. I'm certainly not going to change the copyright and reuse statement at www.jameslogancourier.org. I'm the advisor to the student newspaper/blog, and I don't think it would be appropriate to release the students' work under wikinews' suggested license.

So you'll have to be content with the previously offered permission. I suppose you could write me at courier@nhusd.k12.ca.us, the site's email address, which is listed on the site, and I'll reiterate via email reply the same permission for reuse.


 * The email solutions sounds good, thanks for making the efford. You should receive my email shortly. --vonbergm 04:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot access the email server, which is maintained by the school district, not me. It appears to be down, so I cannot read your mail for several hours.

To speed things up, I have put a special reuse statement on the article at the originating website, www.jameslogancourier.org. I hope it's enough. Otherwise, you'll have to wait perhaps 10 hours, as the school district's technician's don't usually work overnight.


 * I think the previously offered permission is sufficient, myself. I see no reason for the tag to remain any longer. Neutralizer 04:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. The reuse statement looks good too. Let's get this article out there. Aaron Winborn 11:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

copyright
I would like to see an actual statement of allowing this use. All articles are released under Creative Commons. If there is no real permission to use this article, the copyright stays. I am not comfortable with a blog statement used as "permission." If the e-mail servers are down, and I cannot e-amil the individual, then I am not comfortable without his/her permission. Jason Safoutin 11:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A specific release under Creative Commons, posted on the article at the website where it originated is not sufficient?

It's hard to believe that a specific release on the originating page, placed there by the author at wikinews' request isn't enough. In fact, I've already met wikinews' stated requirements. Here's what it says on wikinews' "disputed" page: "if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please indicate so on this page's talk page." Patrick 24.5.224.240 12:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have received email confirmation in reply to my request to confirm the copyright release information given above, sent to the email address posted onthe website of the published article. Thus I have removed the copyvio tag. Anyone who wants to see the email or has questions please let me know. --vonbergm 15:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

picture
Can anyone post a relevant picture? Taking a picture of a high-school pop machine and uploading it to commons would be great. --vonbergm 15:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the soda-machine picture. Can someone who knows the copyright issues transfer this picture for use in wikinews? I linked it already (but it does not show up yet...) --vonbergm 16:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Image is now on the Commons and thus in the article. --Deprifry|+T+ 17:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

litigation threat
I feel that the fact that this deal came through with the help of obecity related litegation threats, similar to the tobacco company litigations suits, is important background info. Why take this out? --vonbergm 16:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The inference that the agreement between the soda distributors and and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation was spurred by the threatened lawsuit by is not reflected in any comment by the participants in the agreement that I can find. Perhaps a paragraph noting the previous threats of suits, none of which I can confirm have actually been filed, could be added, but to make a direct link between the threats and the agreement based on inference seems to violate the NPOV guideline. JLCourier 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The NYT article has plenty of information and quotes to back this up. That's why I included this as a source when I inserted this information originally. --vonbergm 18:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I just read the NYT article again, and it has lots of information about potential lawsuits, but, as it was published last year, it makes no connection to the Alliance for a Healthier Generation or the just-announced deal. Again, it's a reasonable inference to make, but there is no concrete evidence of a connection. A paragraph noting the potential lawsuits seems appropriate, but somebody else has to make the connection, not the writer. Otherwise, it's commentary and speculation on the part of the writer.206.210.225.131 21:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Are we talking about the same NYT article? I am referring to the one from yesterday that I initially included in the sources. And there are plenty of people making that connection. --vonbergm 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, As I previously noted, a paragraph regarding the threatened lawsuits seems appropriate to me. In the time since I wrote the story, I've read some quotes from Professor and lawyer Richard Daynard, who's role in the agreement is not precisely clear, in which he makes a connection between the agreement and the lawsuits. There is a woman from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, one of the lawsuit threateners, who also makes the connection. They seem authoritative enough to use to make the connection. Feel free to do so, as far as I'm concerned. However, the original addition cited "reports" which were not identified, as I recall, which seemed insufficient to me.JLCourier 00:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the NYT article quotes those people, and even Clinton is quoted insisting that it was not only litigation that made this work (implying that litigation threats played some role). At this point it is probably not a good idea to change the published story, and this might not be enough to fill a follow up. --vonbergm 01:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Title
Nice article. If I was to nit-pick, it would have been nice if the title was a little more specific (sadly all soft drink manufacturers haven't agreed to stop selling soda to all schools in the world), but as the article is published now and it's a minor point, it's not worth changing... Frankie Roberto 21:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

significance of BMI chart?
does it seem a little irrelevant to the article? The US isn't the only one selling pop in schools... and this is in no way trying to link obesity with drinking soda. Couldn't there be a more compelling graph? Personally I don't think drinking soda has anything to do with obesity... maybe it's all the junk food that parents let kids eat? My school has a crazy amount of kids drinking energy drinks and soda, but we have very few overweight kids. I've been drinking at least 3 12-oz cans of soda a day for many years, I sit around doing nothing, I eat sugary and fatty foods, and I've gone from 105 pounds to.... 106 pounds... over the course a few years. But if there is a link connecting weight gain to soda, maybe there should be a link to a wiki article about it?

Delete this article
This event seems like is happened. now most schools stop selling sodas. At my school in South Orange County (El Toro High School) still have four soda machines. When you say all high schools by 2007 is an error. Thats for most high schools. Most middle high school in California stop selling sodas by July 2004. Few schools in California still have another year to eliminate soda machines. -- SoCalCoast 01:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Error
...law will go into full affect...

It should be effect. Sorry I'm so nitpicky!!!
 * ✅ C628 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)