Talk:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on Fall 2006. Further details are available here. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
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 217.151.198.24 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Third party references
editThis 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"
editI'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)