Open main menu

Talk:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


Links to external links such as the online edition and the doomsday clock do not lead to any where except junk. Perhaps they changed their addresses? VeriGGlater 12:20, 12 April, 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! They work again. Maybe it was their site since I couldn't get those links to work by typing them in either. VeriGGlater 12:01, 1 September, 2007 (UTC)

The "fear" section is a bit confusing. It's hard to tell whether the Bulletin supports disarmment or not. Could use some clarification from someone who knows what they're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class ratingEdit

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


I think there's a NPOV problem with the Doomsday part of the article.It mentions it moved to 2 minutes to midnight "as Soviet Union continued to test more and more devices".It was not only the Soviets,but the US had also tested a H-bomb 9 months earlier or later(I forget which),which prompted the move to 2 minutes.The article can be interpreted to lay the entire blame at the door of the Soviets. EaswarH (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Web ContentEdit

The following statement is inaccurate: "The Bulletin has been partially available on-line for some years, the entire content becoming fully available on-line as a paid digital subscription late in 2008."

The Bulletin offers both free web content & subscription-based premium content. The entry has been updated accordingly. @BAS Atomicgurl00 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Politically motivated edit?Edit

"In January 25, 2018, the bulletin convened and dubiously [according to who?] set the clock 30 seconds later. It was alleged [by who?] that the bulletin was under political influence [by who?] to undermined the Trump administration efforts to denuclearise North Korea, marking the start of partisanship in the bulletin. [says who? and source needed] "

This entire part was added without any citation except for ones stating that the clock was in fact moved 30 seconds forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Third party referencesEdit

This article seems to rely a bit too heavily on the Bulletin's website itself and lacking in third party references, so I marked it as such. Androsyn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

"bimonthly" vs. "bimestrial"Edit

I'm changing "frequency: bimonthly" to "frequency: bimestrial", because "bimonthly" is ambiguous: It can mean alternate months or twice monthly. "bimestrial" is less common but unambiguous.

If you think it should still be "bimonthly", I'd like to see documentation of a Wikimedia discussion on that. Or let's change it to something more precise like "odd-numbered months". (Their web site lists recent issues published in January, November, ... .)

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • WP discussion? We have Category:Bimonthly journals with 990 entries, not a single one of which goes for "bimestrial". For twice-monthly we have Category:Biweekly journals with 168 entries. So that looks like over a thousand articles where nobody objects to bimonthly/biweekly. I'm going to revert your edit. I think that it's the other way around: before changing things to bimestrial, you'll have to show that there is consensus for that. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" page.