Talk:Doomsday Clock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Removed Zero Minute Changes

Description in table referred to zero minute non-changes not designated in timeline. Removed.

two minutes to midnight :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5DCFjk_O4w — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.224.235 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell would you remove cultural references?

I just came back to this page after a long time and found all cultural references removed. What the hell? The clock obviously had enormous cultural impact, but you don't want Wikipedia visitors to know anything about it? Are you serious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borism (talk • contribs) 09:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fear mongering/propaganda?

No mention of any of these in the entire article? 83.71.86.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Reagan

The clock was changed because of "U.S. policies of Ronald Reagan"? (#11) What were these policies? What impact did they have on world politics? No other politician has been referenced in this way. This just seems like a slam on Reagan with no actual information. -- Steve carlson 04:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Project SDI, "Empire of Evil", "I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes", Arm races and more --Winterheart 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that a race requires at least two participants... hmm. And you're quoting a mic test? The arms race was as much the responsibility of Soviet leadership as it was the U.S.'s. Blaming Reagan is childish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.70.10 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they really screwed that up. It turns out, forcing the USSR to collapse was good for the world - who knew?! Oh, and SDI would lead to nuclear war? Why would someone be suicidal enough to launch missles into a shield, provoking a war that would be horribly one-sided?
OK, I agree that Reagan did all those things, I just think the article should be more specific rather than condemning Reagan's entire administration.Steve carlson 00:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is this clock thing just a lefty farce? I feel so used. 74.225.130.13 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reagan was hilarious. The more seriously you take the "We begin bombing in five minutes" comment, the more the joke he is making works for everyone who gets it, because the point of the comment was to make you and everyone who shares your opinions look like fools, which it does brilliantly.

Has no one in academia had the balls to point out the many and obvious absurdities of this Doomsday Clock nonsense? The meaning of it, the methods, the multiple logical fallacies involved -- surely there must have been some sources critical of this. If there isn't, then that would only show a total disconnect between scholarship and reality. --2610:E0:A040:7EFD:74AD:4F1F:1250:CEEA (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cuban Missile Crisis

What about the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did this event not contribute to the "minutes to midnight?" --pyro05x 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no--the clock is only updated with the publication of a new issue of the bulletin; since the Cuban Missile Crisis came and went in 13 days, they didn't have time to update it. I think the clock is more meant to sum up each year, or at least quarter. --Dvyost 16:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it's foolish that they couldn't go back and say "during those thirteen days, we were at one minute to midnight." I've never understood why they couldn't add that to the history of the clock. I know the clock is essentially useless, but it's odd that the closest we came to annihilation never registered on the clock specifically created to track our closeness to nuclear war. GreatGatsby 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The clock is adjusted based on analysis of worldwide trends and not mere individual events. This accounts for the lack of a clock movement in response to the CMC. IONChicago, 02 August 2006
But ironically it was "mere" individual events that put us the closest to actual nuclear war... --Fastfission 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL agreeded. strange clock this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oszalał (talk • contribs) 06:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorists

The sentance "terrorists seek to aquire nuclear arms", I don't think this really belongs. I know that they might be, but do we really know. This is an encyclopedia, not a message board for speculation. I think that sentence should be removed or maybe re-worded. If no one posts anything in here in the next couple of days, I'll change it. anon 08:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The "terrorists seek to acquire nuclear arms" comes directly from the Bulletin's explanation for changing the time, so I think it's more than appropriate to include it on the page. Jlgospelfan 09:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be mentioned that it is really impossible to determine how close the world is to nuclear war, and that one should not use this clock to gauge the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

Veracity

The page should mention that it is really impossible to tell how close the world is to nuclear war, and therefore one should not use this clock to gauge the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The clock is a subjective interpretation of world events and cannot predict the future.

That is a very good point. The fact is that this is theoretically a collective opinion and truly does not speak to the actual concrete "proof" of the prospect of some type of man made ELE. As a heavy believer of science one must realize that much of these types of predictions are primarily theory, and should not be taken too seriously.

Wiki touts itself as some sort of neutral encyclopedia that weeds out POV. This whole article is basically POV or worse just plain propaganda posing as some sort of dispassionate scientific assessment of the risk of human annilation from nuclear war or whatever - "periodically corrected" as the introduction boasts. What a crock... Jmdeur (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem: deltas have the wrong sign

The Doomsday Clock started out at 23:53 back in 1947. call me for any questions 412-605-4733

1949 - […] Clock changed to three minutes to midnight (-4 change).

Advancing a clock from 23:53 to 23:57 is a change of +4 minutes, not −4. What's happening here is that arithmetic is applied to numbers blindly, losing the meaning of the numbers from sight. The graph exhibits the same mistake: the curve goes down as time advances. Such innumeracy, while sadly all too common, is not worthy of an encyclopedia.

The article is easy to fix and I may do so myself, but I have the nasty feeling that such a change might be reverted. Wikipedians may argue that the current version is correct (even if it isn't). What do you think?
—Herbee 12:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The orientation of all of it is set up so that it is counting 'down to midnight, which seemed to me to be the best way to convey the semantic meaning of the numbers (it is a change in minutes to midnight, not the raw time). I'm not sure that changing it so that it is counting up to midnight makes the meaning of the numbers more clear. If you want to take the time to turn everything around, feel free to, but be aware that it was not accidental. --Fastfission 14:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Doomsday Clock is not a countdown. You're just making that up to justify a design flaw. The Doomsday Clock is a metaphor to make complicated issues easy to understand at a glance. We should accept the metaphor and interpret the numbers as what they are: clock times. We should not mix in another metaphor (of a countdown), or try to dumb the subject down by adding another layer of metaphor (whatever you're proposing).
—Herbee 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the text to use "closer to" and "farther from", and I've included a slightly longer description each time the clock hands change direction. See if you like this approach...
Atlant 15:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Good job Atlant; that certainly fixes the problem. Legibility hasn't improved though; maybe I'll try to fix that.
—Herbee 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem: graph misrepresents data

The graph shows the "Doomsday time" varying continuously from year to year. That is not what the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists intends. Each Bulletin moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock discontinuously, after which they stay fixed in the same position until the next Bulletin.
—Herbee 12:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't necessarily show it varying continuously (the lines just connect the datapoints, which are clearly marked), but anyway, feel free to re-draw it if you are concerned. --Fastfission 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily, no: not if you ignore the lines that suggest continuity and mentally add the horizontal lines that should be there. Let's just say that there is room for improvement.
—Herbee 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, look at Image_talk:Doomsday_Clock_Graph.png. There's another, discontinuous version of it there, which you're welcome to put in. There's also some brief discussion between people who like it one way or another. I don't care either way, honestly. --Fastfission 14:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Inverted Graph

I would have expected upper levels on the graph to be closer to doom. It took me a minute to realize closer to the bottom is worse. So it might make sense to flip the y-axis by putting '0' at the top, maybe with a dashed 'doom' line. Jeffhoy 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then again, if you think about the graph representing a bomb dropping, it's mnemonic ;-). Seriously, arguments could be presented either way and I think the red/blue scale on the left side makes this pretty clear. Another good part about have zero at the bottom is we aren't bounded towards the top. Someday, the world may again start getting safer and we may need ever-increasing times to midnight. Well, on second thought, nevermind that one. Maybe we just need an improved title for the graph?
Atlant 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
However red doesn't mean negative in parts of the world such as China Nil Einne 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Add The Clock to the Article

Someone should add a random picture of the infamous clock to the article. I think that is a must for this wiki article. Like this one here --Gakhandal 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What do the minutes stand for?

I'm assuming that the minutes don't mean anything. That the only thing they're measuring is the danger relative to the other minutes that have been assigned. Is this a fair assumption? I used to think that the setting on the clock corresponded to a belief that nuclear war was actually that close to being started. Since I came here looking for an explanation of exactly what the setting meant, I think others might be in search of that info, and it might be nice if someone added it to the article. -Freekee 00:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You understand things correctly; the "minutes" are arbitrary.
Atlant 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Clock change in 2007

I figured this was coming when I got the postcard saying they'd be delaying the January issue. :-( Thanks, George, for making our world a safer place (not).

Atlant 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I figured they were changing the clock as a way of bringing publicity to their new website. Just think of all that lovely advertising revenue... Am I being too cynical here? Tom. 155.198.95.44 16:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • ...Short answer - probably. The clock changes quite rarely, and their website gets plenty of traffic without changing the time. Crimsone 17:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • actually i've heard a lot of criticism of the bulletin for not moving the clock more agressively to highlight the current problems in stopping proliferation, especially post-9/11. they are probably now catching up with the current situation. Emax0 01:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

2012?

So what is the predicted year by the atomic scientists that we will annihilate ourselves with nukes? If each minute stands for one year from 2007, then the ending nuclear annihilation will appear in 2012! This is ironic because so many sources (including the Mayan super-calender) predicts this year as the end of the world or end of an era. Thoughts? Zachorious 08:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I've always understood it to be a representation of how close we are to the brink, rather than an estimate as to when something will actually happen. --Ckatzchatspy 09:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You're not mistaken.
Atlant 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not meant to be any sort of predictive device. Minutes do not "stand" for anything concrete. --140.247.240.75 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Though the minutes are not supposed to represent years, it is chilling that we could be close to Judgement Day! AAAAAHHH!!! --Defender 911 23:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it really matter if it went to 12, I mean, we'd be dead anyway....--66.218.148.99 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"If each minute stands for one year from 2007," It does not. Dlsimon (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is going to happen on 21 December 2012, any scholar on pre-Columbian Mayan culture will tell you that. --74.178.228.8 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Extraneous Non Related Information Posted

There is Extraneous Non Related Information Posted for the history of the time changes - See February 9 ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.46.199.233 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Revised disambiguation link

Given that there are several creative works referencing the term "minutes to midnight", this page has seen an increasing number of disambiguation headers in recent days. In an effort to solve that problem, I have created a new disambiguation page at Minutes to Midnight (disambiguation). The list there includes the Heroes and Highlander episodes and the Linkin Park album previously listed at the top of this article, plus a few other references I located. Hopefully, this will help. --Ckatzchatspy 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot it appears here too. Ronbo76 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed the redirection from Minutes to Midnight so as it goes to Linkin Park Album..Main reason for this are the Buzz about it and Google results on the subject..Ppapadeas 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Reversed - the album may be popular now, but may not be so in a few months time, whereas the clock has been around for decades. Minutes To Midnight already redirects there anyways. --Ckatzchatspy 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

totally right...Ppapadeas 19:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Minutes to midnight should go to a midnight disambig page, where it would like to the LP album and doomsday clock, among other midnight things.

Criticism

Some constructive criticism should be added for this page. The "clock", IMHO, is kind of stupid and while Wiki needs it's neutral format, some of the logical silliness of the clock and its usefulness or lack thereof to society should be noted.

  • Your (or my, for that matter) criticism or opinion is not welcome here. Find a reputable source for criticism and of course it can be incorporated. --24.147.86.187 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(giggle)

I imagine Osama bin Laden holds, err, uh, held a very critical opinion of it. I don't believe he's available for comment, anymore. I don't believe any other groups other than middle eastern terrorists would hold such an opinion. Any ideas of how to approach them, or other groups that might hold a contrary opinion? I believe a rational discussion of their expert opinion would be in order. Sadly, I don't think "rational" translates well into some dialects of some languages.96.24.93.114 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What does midnight represent?

I don't understand exactly what midnight is. Does it signify the beginning of a nuclear war, or does it represent when the last humans are killed by nukes? If it's the latter, then nuclear war would be like a minute to midnight. (Wikifan999 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

The first sentence explains what midnight is supposed to mean. Your own idiosyncratic interpretation is not really useful. --24.147.86.187 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ouch speaking of neutral POV haha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.54 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupid or trolling? You be the judge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.255.62 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus, Mayan calender, and the doomsday clock have a run-in here

Nostradumus predicted WWIII to be started by the execution of a man nammed Mabus or Madus, and as the 2012 guy said, one minute for each year will bring us to the mayan end date. And Madus spelled backward is Sudam, doesn't that sound like Saddam? However, only the doomsday clock and nostradumaus really go together, the clock will probably land on midnight in 2012, But nostradumus said, "The war will last seven years and twenty" so both the clock and nostradumus together cancel out the mayan theory. what do you think? and souldn't this all be on the page? (I'd put this on all three pages but that will look wierd) (24.60.147.196 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

Oh, my user name is (Darth Vader II 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

  • No, uninteresting coincidences do not belong on the page. --24.147.86.187 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing is going to happen on 21 December 2012 -- any scholar on pre-Columbian Maya will tell you that --74.178.228.8 (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some serious problem of proportion...

I would like to point out that there is only one sentence in this article about what the Doomsday Clock actually is and that takes up no more of the article than the Gummi Bears reference. --87.175.64.226 17:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A problem of proportion or a triumph of concision? What exactly would you have said more about what the clock "actually is"? It is a fairly simple concept. --24.147.86.187 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gummi Bears

What is this doing here? Is there any indication it's an actual reference and not merely something of the same name? I find it hard to believe that an afternoon Disney cartoon for kids set in the Middle Ages was referring to nuclear annihilation. --Belg4mit 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation

I've added some content at the beginning, but I don't know how to cite a web page. If someone could put this in for me, that'd be great. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/27/doomsday-clock.htm Agent_Koopa 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. (I've actually used a reference from the "Bulletin" web site.) Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doomsday clock.svg

Image:Doomsday clock.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale as this image is needed. Hopefully, it will address the issue. --Ckatzchatspy 09:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else?...

Whenever I click the link to see the official website for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the Doomsday Clock, it cannot seem to connect and gives me a "Problem Loading Page" error.

I'm wondering whether its just me or do others face the same problem?

If it's others, then we may need to fix the link perhaps? ArchiveMaker (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried all the official links I could find - no problems loading. It could be a firewall issue on your system, or (more likely, if it doesn't repeat) a glitch somewhere across the 'Net. Thanks for bringing it up, though - always helpful. --Ckatzchatspy 10:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

stop it!

I'm getting tired of hearing that the clock is to be taken literal or in a sense of it, this clock is only symbolic it is only based on the current condition of free world security and should not be taken seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.28.14 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think it should be taken very seriously, just not literally. sadly, I understand that some personality types have an issue with the difference.96.24.93.114 (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition or subtraction of time on the chart

currently, as the time approaches midnight, the chart shows the subtraction of the number of minutes in read. When the time drops, it is a plus sign in green. Shouldn't it be the other way around? As the clock approaches midnight, time is added so it should be a plus sign in red. and vice versa for time dropping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.90.142 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Russians

The doomsday clock can be heard at the beginning and end of the song : shouldn't it be added to the section "in Pop culture", sub-section "In music" ? Or is it considered an original interpretation ? Blinking Spirit (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


Updated links

References to the 2007 clock announcement ("Doomsday Clock" Moves Two Minutes Closer To Midnight) should point to this press release link: http://thebulletin.org/content/media-center/announcements/2007/01/17/doomsday-clock-moves-two-minutes-closer-to-midnight OR to the full page announcement (summary) "It is 5 minutes to midnight" at http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/q9857x714r722857/?p=f0f38daf388648f9a2033d539f805603&pi=20 -- Thanks! Atomicgurl00 @ BAS (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

DJ Shadow Update

Hello. I am new to wikipedia so I wanted to put this to the group before figuring how to update this item but whoever posted a comment regarding "the Clock" being referenced in a DJ Shadow song, I'm fairly sure they were thinking about the song "Six Days" (2002) RATHER than "Midnight in a Perfect World". "Six Days" samples an old 60's protest song (re:Six Day War) by a group called "Colonel Bagshot" and is commonly thought to reference/foreshadow nuclear war. BlatherSkyte (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)BlatherSkyte


Sources for pop culture references?

Any sources for:

"Glenn Beck's original show on Headline News featured a Doomsday Clock on his set. However, he was told he was in violation of trademark and copyright laws and was forced to remove it."

DCSB2005 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably more likely because Glenn Beck is a fear-mongering racist, and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have more dignity than being associated with someone like that.--74.178.228.8 (talk) 05:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Three Minutes To Midnight

This article has been updated to say that it is currently 11:57. Any sources for this? Considering at this moment, it is still 11:03AM GMT and the changing of the clock begins at 3:00PM GMT, therefore, how would anybody know what the new time is for the Doomsday Clock?

EDIT: I hope nobody minds, but I've removed the, I would think, obviously false statement that the Doomsday Clock is now set at 11:57. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.168.3 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the page with the current clock reading & press release source. As of Jan. 14, 2010, it is 6 minutes to midnight. See: http://thebulletin.org/content/media-center/announcements/2010/01/14/it-6-minutes-to-midnight Atomicgurl00 (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday Clock set to change this Thursday (1/14/10)

According to this article http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11821250 "The hands of the infamous doomsday clock are set to move for the first time in three years on Thursday, but which way the hand will move and by how much have not been made public." - Shouldn't this information be added? It also states in the article "The last time the clock moved was in January 2007" yet the wiki article suggests otherwise. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture section needed

There is obviously a lot of reference to this clock in pop culture -e.g. Iron Maiden's "Two Minutes to Midnight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.140.77 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

starting time

how the Bulletin determine that 11:53 was an appropriate time to begin the countdown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.228.8 (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Six minutes?

Since the clock is now set at six minutes to midnight, shouldn't the image be corrected? It still appears to be set at 11:55. 67.163.134.177 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The real image is changed. The current time is actually 6 minutes to midnight, information here reflects it as being 4 minutes to midnight, and the page is locked so I can't fix it.

wikipedia is so stupid sometimes.96.24.93.114 (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Political viewpoint, and misleading information

The newest entry has a line with "Worldwide cooperation to reduce nuclear arsenals and limit effect of climate change". This is inaccurate because this development was strictly between the US and Russia to reduce deployed nuclear weapons to 1,500 each.

As for political viewpoints, the issue of global warming is a hotly debated issue and thus i suggest all references to it be removed. Not only would allowing it disrespect wiki neutrality stance, but it also holds little relevance to the doomsday clock, who deals with nuclear armageddon.


76.181.114.227 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Jade Rat

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists apparently also factor in their opinion on Global Warming (now "Climate Change(tm)") into their Doomsday calculations. Whether or not these calculations are valid is, of course, a matter of hot debate. But the fact that they are including such requires its documentation in Wiki. It's akin to saying that Astrologers consider the position of Mars when calculating fate. While it is contested that the position of Mars has anything to do with fate, the fact that they use it qualifies for notation.
That said, I am surprised there is no documentation concerning the debate about the Doomsday Clock and itself. It's validity and bias toward liberal and socialist positions is subject of numerous dissertations that should be Wikiized. (I just made up a new word. Someone make a page on it!) 66.239.236.122 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1947

The original 1947 version looks more like 8 minutes to 12:00 instead of 7 to me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The June 1947 issue didn't mention the clock; it was simply their first cover. (Prior to that, the Bulletin had no cover.) The next issue, in July 1947, acknowledged the clock but didn't specify an exact time. In some issues, I see references to moving the clock "a few minutes" forward or backward. While I haven't done a full examination, the first time I see a reference to a particular time is in the January 1968 issue, at which point the Bulletin (in a paragraph below the table of contents entitled "Cover") specified that the clock was "originally set at seven minutes to midnight". While this is over two decades removed from the original artwork, since the Doomsday Clock is defined by the Bulletin, if they say it's seven, then it's seven. This has been confirmed in other issues (such as Jan 78 and Nov 95), and is what is on the Bulletin's online timeline. I personally agree, it looks more like eight, but the defining authority says seven.
Of course, whether it's seven or eight minutes is irrelevant. The original intention (as I see it) was as cover artwork to signify "we're close"; it's not like the exact time is calculated from an objective calculation. As discussed above, the minutes are arbitrary. --Piquan (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

If anyone wants to bring this back, the big deletion was here.

If we are to restore this, I'd suggest doing it as a separate article.

If we do it, it also needs to be sourced and pretty comprehensive. There's a real risk that it will simply return in drips and drabs of "my favourite band", when this is just a very recent throwaway mention by Justin Bieber, and misses out songs like 1980's "Seven Minutes to Midnight", which is (AFAIK) the very first song to use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who added Blondie's 11:59, only to find a few hours after that it was gone, alongside Iron Maiden's Two Minutes to Midnight. I think both songs deserve a mention here, since they are cold war era references to this, and that gives them special relevance. I don't see why "popular culture" should not include music, since the article is really short. 186.52.31.214 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I also think there should be a pop culture section in the article.--Peulle (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Error in citation or information

The page lists the Clock as being at midnight in 2013, with the reason being North Korea's nuclear weapons program. It points to reference 8 (this Washington Post article) but the reference says "The Doomsday Clock, a figurative timepiece used as a barometer of humankind’s fate, was moved one minute closer to midnight on Tuesday, the first time it has been nudged forward since 2007. It is now 11:55, five minutes before the appointed hour. " It was retrieved and published in January of 2012 and does not reflect in any way the events in North Korea in 2013. This is in direct contrast to the page which states it was adjusted 5 minutes to be exactly at midnight. Either this is an improper citation for this event, or this event is falsified and should be removed as spam. 184.7.171.211 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sundial of every-politician-on-the-planet-being-tarred-and-feathered

Originally Drawn-and-Quartered. Sources are Incoming. Mark my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.61.60 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangely biased

"The Soviet Union tests its first atomic bomb, officially starting the nuclear arms race."

So the arms race is not started by the person running first, but by the one that follows ... That might be technically correct as it wouldn't be a race if nobody attempted to catch up, but it's silly to attribute the increased danager to somebody who has been threatened and attempts to catch up to return on equal terms. While such a representation might be historically correct (in the sense that the clock change was explained that way at that time) but I feel this biased explanation cannot remain uncommented in a current publication as WikiPedia. I mean - my neighbor buys a new gun and tests it and claims to dominate the neighborhood and when I go to buy me a gun myself then _I_ am the one who is responsible for decreased security ? Really, get over it ! JB --92.195.108.138 (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The logic is that a "race" requires two participants and that the race began when the Soviet Union tested their first bomb. The statement does not attribute the increased danger to one participant but to the race itself. The arms race in your neighborhood begins when you both have guns and each begin buying more guns in response to the other. You are both responsible for decreased security. Your comment about "claims to dominate the neighborhood" suggests your agenda is broader than a neutral description. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

2014 change in time

There has been a change in time in 2014 which is noted in the article, but the chart in the article has not been updated.67.243.186.3 (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC) Neither has the graph.67.243.186.3 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Political?

The opening sentence reads:

The Doomsday Clock is a symbolic clock face, representing a countdown to possible political related global catastrophe (nuclear war or climate change).

Is climate change really "political related"? I think these words are misplaced here. —sroc 💬 01:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The pollution in each country is depending of the country's laws, so yes, that's also politically related. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Only partially, potentially, as a consequence – in a way that practically anything could be somewhat politically related – but not directly, unlike nuclear war. —sroc 💬 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I've changed it. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Quarter-face

The symbolic "minutes to midnight" become a bit less arbitrary, and a bit more meaningful in an absolute rather than strictly relative sense, once one notes that the clock face is typically depicted in ways that restrict the minute hand to the top-left quadrant, give or take a bit. Thus, the "seventeen minutes to" setting they used in the early '90s is just about as early as the conventional design allows for. With that in mind, the clock time takes on a slightly different aspect, not entirely unlike that of, say, the states of a traffic light or the US military's DEFCON. I think the article would be more illuminating if it made mention of that (but failed to find anything to elevate it above OR, so far). - 46.115.143.141 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Doomsday Clock graphic (solved)

Why am I seeing from farness the Doomsday Clock graphic in its former position all the time? Only by clicking onto it I see the current graph. The same in the german wikipedia. But e.g. in the polish wikipedia the graph is alright. Can I make anything against that misleading? --80.108.153.176 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Now it is right, the problem is solved. --80.108.153.176 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconds?

If the Doomsday Clock happens to reach 11:59, will they start using seconds to midnight instead (such as 11:59:30, 11:59:15 etc.) in order to delay midnight further? --danikayser84 ★ 23:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, "1 minute to midnight" would mean, that there is a very high chance for a global catastrophe (e.g. a nuclear war) and that it's very probable that it breaks out the same year. Then there is only "Midnight" yet, the start of the nuclear war. If the Doomsday Clock would have been invented earlier, the Trinity Test 1945 would set it at "1 minute to midnight" and the nuclear bombings on Japan onto "midnight". With the finishing of the war, it would probably be set on "2 minutes to midnight" or so. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The more they push the clock forward aggressively, the more likely a move to seconds becomes. There have been rumors about moving to a digital clock for years which would facilitate the switch to seconds. Midnight is also no longer clearly defined in terms of nuclear war. Its not really clear at all what "midnight" actually represents these days. The clock is really sort of a political frustration index for the people who make the board these days. The whole thing is a sort of cold war relic that should have been wrapped up. The "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" is no longer run by atomic scientists. The Bulletin itself ceased publication years ago and has become a sort of amaturish online blog. The board that controls the clock is more and more made up of political insiders and non-scientists. What once was representative of outsiders, now contains a close personal friend of Henry Kissinger, a former director of one of the national labs, an ex-journalist, a political hack from India and so on. 75.17.127.117 (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 update

It has been announced the clock will remain at 3 minutes before midnight amid nuclear tensions. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Rather: Amid a perception of a lack of progress on climate change, a lack of progress on nuclear disarmament and the continued existence of nuclear power as a form of energy. And rather than "remain", it was moved to "3 minutes". 75.17.127.117 (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Image

Should we add an image of the Clock at its current setting to the page? At the moment I'm not sure if I can because of copyright reasons. Linguist111 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

any analog or digital clock would not be copyright violation, if not an exact copy of their design. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
There should be a photograph of this clock in the small room in the University of Chicago. I've had a look on the Google Images and there is no photo at all of this clock by anyone. Does it really exist or is it an urban myth? We need to get a student into the university to investigate and take a photo then it can be published, if there really is a clock or not. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The room is either a myth or no longer exists. The Bulletin itself now says that there is no physical clock (see: [1]). During the transition years ago of the Bulletin from a real publications to a sort of self-published blog, alot was done away with in terms of physical stuff. I think what people talk about when they reference the physical clock is a bunch of props that the magazine used over the years in press conferences. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The moving forward by half a minute of the clock is clear propaganda against the current president. Being armed is not a threat to the world, in fact it prevents world wars. It's when there is vulnerability that there is risk of war. The clock represents racism against white Americans & Russians.

Need to update to no change for this year

Need to update to no change for this year.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The table is only updated when the Clock changes. There is already info about the Clock staying where it is in the first few paragraphs. Linguist111 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to get to common ground with Linguist111

Ok, the only reason I inverted the +/- is because change forward should be positive change, not negative change. But I get that it represents the change in the minutes to midnight -- should it be based on the overall time, or the minutes to midnight? You can vote here.

I also changed the color of two bold entries because they were the closest and farthest the clock had been from midnight since inception. I didn't revert that, but I want you decide if you think that's appropriate or not.

I understand that the Doomsday Clock pic was possibly copyrighted, now that I've seen the above talk. So I deleted that image.

I also see no reason at all in deleting the "Time" column.

I'm quite a new user, so don't get enraged with my mistakes.

Hdjensofjfnen (talk|contribs) 23:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Hdjensofjfnen, and welcome to Wikipedia. You have not made any "mistakes" as such. I just though maybe I could improve the table a little bit. First of all, the official site (http://thebulletin.org) features the Clock with the caption "It is # minutes to midnight" instead of "It is 23:##". So I think the "Change" column should reflect the change in the numbers of minutes to midnight. Second, it already says in the "Reason" column for 1953 and 1991's changes about the Clock being the closest/furthest from midnight that it has been. As for the "Time" column, I didn't think it was necessary to have it there because we already know that e.g. 3 minutes to midnight is equal to 23:57. But this is just my opinion. Linguist 111talk 10:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to leave the page as is right now. Tell me if you want more changes. Hdjensofjfnen (talk|contribs) 20:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the table back, except that I have left the "Time" column, but I put it before the "Minutes to midnight" column to avoid confusion about the "Changes" column (since the column reflects plus/minus the number of minutes to midnight, it is best for the "Minutes to midnight" column to be next to it). Linguist 111talk 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks! Hdjensofjfnen (u | t | c) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

During Able Archer 83 the trigger was almost pulled on WW III.

During Able Archer 83, WW III. was real close at hand. Why no mentioning? About e.g. East-German spy 'Topaz' ? 61.12.164.234 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Because AFAIR, the BuAS didn't respond to Able Archer. A crisis on that timescale was simply too quick for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Clock images to table

I've uploaded to commons the clock images and added them to the table. I am not sure if it is an improvement or necessary. Please feel free to revert. If you do, consider adding one to the top right of the article as either an identifier or indicator of current status.

As for the copyright status, I uploaded them in good faith as {{PD-ineligible}} per guidance at IRC from a commons admin.

See also: Talk:Doomsday Clock/Archive 1#Image (above)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't resist adding a lead image with current time and the 2016 entry to the bottom of the table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I said revert if you like, but now I think it is an improvement. It helps the visitor really see the movement toward and away from that time when we kiss our loved ones and stop worrying about the dishes in the sink. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright justification for use of images?

I noticed the clock image was out of date, and went to check the licence so I could upload a new one. I found that Anna Frodesiak has uploaded the images (and Danothy has now uploaded the most recent one) with justification "This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship."

Is this justified? There have been artistic decisions taken in the design of this clock, e.g. how to crop it, relative size of elements - I don't see why it wouldn't be copyrightable. I suspect if we contacted the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists they might well be willing to GFDL them; or we could make our own. TSP (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

In fact, if you look on the Bulletin's website, they've copyrighted the phrase "It is two and a half minutes to midnight." I don't know if the copyright notice on that text extends to the Clock itself, but it may. I've sent an email to the Bulletin to determine this, and will report back with a response if/when I get one. MereTechnicality (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
IMPORTANT UPDATE: The Bulletin has responded and said that the Clock should not be used without their permission under any circumstance. I asked for permission to use it on Wikipedia and have not received a response. The image may need to be replaced. I will let everyone know when/if the Bulletin responds to my request. MereTechnicality (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@MereTechnicality: They will need to fill out this form and email their consent to OTRS. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mlpearc: I've sent them the form. MereTechnicality (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The person I've had contact with says they think they've already signed that. Can someone check the older images to see if it is? MereTechnicality (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I uploaded those clock images, I sought counsel from commons people. I was assured that the images were easily PD per Commons policy on Threshold of originality. I uploaded them in good faith considering that there is nothing new in the design, and that it is just a generic clock face just like people have been making for a hundred years. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Anna - I hadn't seen that page. It looks like the law is more flexible than I thought, and it's probably right that these don't meet the threshold of originality in the US. (There still might be something to be said in the long-term for creating our own so they are in a consistent format, as the provided ones now aren't). TSP (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
TSP, I must say that the counsel was at IRC. I will ask if it can be published here. I didn't think it worth a post to find out and mentioned it at IRC. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Opinions from Commons to help settle this

At The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, they state: "....Copyright © 2017 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use..." When I click on "Terms of Use", it bounces back to thebulletin.org. The bottom line here may be that, even though they claim ownership of that clock image, it may be made of such simple shapes that they cannot actually have ownership. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Disbelief or denial

The article reads: "and the disbelief in the scientific consensus over climate change by the Trump Administration". The panel's actual quote: "the expressed disbelief". They also mention the refusal to obtain and acknowledge the advice of qualified experts in their respective fields. I would perhaps suggest to include "expressed" in the sentence, and/or to add a second sentence describing the situation, although if none of the sources call it "denial", we should probably, like them, describe the situation in their own words and let the reader evaluate... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please change "disbelief" to "the expressed disbelief" as per source. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Great thanks 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

In the "timeline" table, the "Change" column would be improved by using the more prominent minus sign "−" rather than a hyphen "-". Please change all negative numbers in that table from "-" to "−". 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Linguisttalk|contribs 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
@Linguist111: Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem! Linguisttalk|contribs 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Pop Culture

Since there is a pop culture section, why not link to Iron Maiden's song 2 Minutes to Midnight as it references the clock? Regards, 165.166.215.220 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Done Linguisttalk|contribs 06:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

there is no physical doomsday clock, it's just a design

This article currently says "... the Clock, which hangs on a wall in The Bulletin's office in the University of Chicago,[2] ... ". The cited reference shows a photo of the clock behind the Bulletin editor, circa 2006.

I wanted to visit the clock based on this article. However, a FAQ [1] on The Bulletin's website, published on 26 JANUARY 2017, says
Where can I visit the Doomsday Clock? There is no physical Doomsday Clock.

Out of an abundance of caution, I hesitate to update this page until I get some coaching on how to proceed. Do I edit the text, the reference, the photo which shows a clock?

Alternatively we could launch a kickstarter to build a physical doomsday clock. Quick, we haven't much time! Please advice.

--Bobnewstadt (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

There are many Doomsday Clocks and have been for years. I published a design myself for an Arduino-based physical computing one that updated itself according to The Bulletin's own website.
However there is no single canonical Doomsday Clock. "The Doomsday Time" is defined virtually (and can be replicated to other clocks), rather than read from some "Prime Clock". Andy Dingley (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Having received little guidance in the past 10 days I updated the page to note that visits to the clock in the real world are not possible.

Bobnewstadt (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clockwork8052

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doomsday Clock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Update - January 25, 2018

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists will host a live international news conference at 10 a.m. EST/1500 GMT on Thursday, January 25, 2018, to announce the 2018 time of the Doomsday Clock. Watch the announcement live at clock.thebulletin.org, or on our Facebook page through Facebook Live. https://thebulletin.org/blog/whats-new-bulletin/watch-2018-doomsday-clock-announcement --107.77.210.47 (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Linkin Park album "Minutes to midnight"

This page should link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes_to_Midnight_(Linkin_Park_album)

Why? I would agree this for music released in the early '80s, when this was a new idea, but Linkin Park were 30 years too late. By that time it's an old hackneyed idea, not at all original and not especially relevant.
If anyone released an album today called, "OMG Trump, we're all dead", that might have more relevance. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this is legitimate - Linkin Park is a more prominent band than several of those already mentioned, and arguably it is more notable that the idea was still current in popular culture two decades later, rather than yet another entry from the early 1980s (when the clock was already over 30 years old). There isn't an originality requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, only notability. TSP (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How is it calibrated?

The number of minutes to midnight, as I understand it, is a measure of risk. An estimation of the probability of a catastrophe during the coming year, or so. Probability can be quantified by a number (or be related to another random event, like the probability of yatzy with five dices, or the probability of a royal straight flush in a card game, which in turn have numerical probabilities). How does the number of minutes here relate to a quantitative measurement of risk? (Compare this to earth quakes, that are quantified by magnitude scales, which often are persieved as quite abstract, but relates to a seismic amplitude, to the amount of energy released, or to the level of destruction they cause.) David A se (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, here is what I've found. If it is closer than 7 minutes, the current risk is higher than it was 1947. If it is further than 7 minutes, the current risk is lower than it was 1947. (Doomsday Clockwork thebulletin.org) David A se (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

C/clock

The article consistently capitalizes the word "clock", even when it isn't preceded by "Doomsday". This seems out of place, especially considering that The Bulletin themselves use a lowercase "c". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point! It is now fixed.—Anita5192 (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Re. 22 March 2019

Seems that the clock may be on the move: proposed change is to 1 1/2 minutes to midnight. Mainly seems to be relating to India/Pakistan tensions, Russian hypersonic missiles, plastic in the oceans, "tipping point" climate change, expiry of ABM treaties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.61 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing Epidemics as a cause for 2020

2020 currently lists epidemic risks as a reason the clock was moved forward. I read the press release, and could not find a statement on the matter. It appears to me to be a retroactive addition due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. I would edit it, but I want to be sure I'm not missing anything. 99.18.33.190 (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed it as it was unsourced. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gomeza137.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doomsday_Clock/Archive_1&oldid=1199224587"