Talk:Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Politically motivated 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
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"
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)