Talk:Doomsday Clock

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 111^talk 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 111^talk 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks! Hdjensofjfnen (u | t | c) 21:54, 24 February 2016 (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)

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)

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 Linguist^talk|contribs 18:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Linguist111: Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Linguist^talk|contribs 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)