# Talk:National Debt Clock

I don't seem to find any source mentioning just why the Dursts didn't upgrade the clock when it became apparent that another digit would be needed soon (one source from May 2006 quotes as early a date as Christmas 2007[1]). It looks to me as if they deliberately decided to actually let the clock physically run out of digits, maybe for effect, but there's nothing whatsoever on their motivation to not upgrade the clock earlier. If anyone can find a reliable source that covers that, by all means please add it. I for one think it would give the article a much deeper scope. Everyme 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: This source (already in the article) quotes Douglas Durst like this: "Come Double T Day, he promised, a new clock will be ready, perhaps emphasizing each family's share of the debt, now $89,518." So they did apparently change that plan later on, but there's still not a source for that. Everyme 22:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Another item I'm having a hard time backing up with an RS is the location move when the clock was being restarted in July 2002. Everyme 17:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Everyme 07:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates at the top of the page are in Germany.
This needs to be changed
Hillshum|Talk 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.  I think it's still about five meters east of the correct location, but better than the wrong side of the ocean.  Jim.henderson (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Debt Clock/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Edge3 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make the "Similar projects" section more detailed?
"There also exist various debt tracking resources online." - Cite please. --Edge3 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Looking for more material on similar projects to incorporate. I originally left the sentence about the online resources unreferenced as I deemed it uncontroversial / self-evident. A secondary source for that assertion may be hard to come by, but I'll see what I can do. For the time being I've added an explanatory footnote [2]. --78.34.110.166 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That sentence does seem uncontroversial, doesn't it? You can leave it as it is, then.--Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Just a small update here: I've found several suitable sources for more on similar debt clocks and other projects inspired by the NDC. I'll drop a note once I've expanded the section with the help of those sources. --87.79.182.211 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Done [3]. I've decided to focus on the AMD campaign as the most intriguing example because the comparison isn't reduced to "running total on a billboard of some kind". AMD imitated the NDC project to the extent that their ad campaign was thematically centered around "raising awareness on a critical issue". (AMD even put up one of their billboards near Times Square, which is also noted in the BusinessWeek article, but I left that detail out in order to avoid losing focus.) --87.79.182.211 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks great. I shall now check grammar and sourcing.--Edge3 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful edits! (Thanks also to admin user:Xavexgoem for watching the article :) I did edit into your changes in two places; the reasoning for those formulations is based on the BusinessWeek article and futile attempts at locating a recent source on the AMD campaign. [4], [5] --78.34.98.119 (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
"the clock was unplugged and covered with a red, white and blue curtain in September 2000, with the national debt standing at roughly 5.7 trillion dollars" - The details here aren't supported by the source. --Edge3 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what happened there, I suspect that I myself messed it up in an earlier formatting spree. At any rate, I've placed a reference to the proper source and removed the other one . --78.34.205.234 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"the building has since made way for One Bryant Park. An updated model, which could run backwards, was installed one block away on a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue)." - I can't find this info in the sources either. If I just missed the info when I skimmed the sources, let me know. --Edge3 (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
A note on my sourcing concerns above: the Good article criteria require reliable sources only for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Since the statements listed above don't fall under any of these categories, I'm not requiring that you add new sources. However, I do ask that you remove sources that don't support the information provided. --Edge3 (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
"updated model, which could run backwards" -- That's in the China Daily article: "'It wasn't designed to run backwards,' Douglas Durst explained. [...] In 2004, the old clock was torn down and replaced with a newer model which had optimistically been modified to run backwards should such a happy necessity arise.""on a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas (Sixth Avenue)" -- That's in New York Times 2006: "It is perched these days on the side of a Durst building at 1133 Avenue of the Americas, near 44th Street."(The above are the same sources referenced in the article.)The bit about the building having been replaced by One Bryant Park is easily verifiable, although I haven't so far found it written down like that in an article. One Bryant Park is located on Sixth Avenue between 42nd and 43rd Street, opposite Bryant Park; that's the exact spot where the first clock was mounted on a different building, before it was replaced. However, it's also mere trivia and I wouldn't mind removing it. --78.34.205.234 (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm now passing the article. The sourcing issues, in my opinion, are very minor and don't violate the good article criteria. Keep up the good work!--Edge3 (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The section describing the AMD promotion that includes the sentence "AMD used the increasing public awareness of green computing and related environmental issues to thematically center their comparative advertising campaign around "raising awareness on a critical issue," as AMD Senior Vice President Marty Sayer put it" is, in my opinion, neither relevant nor proportionate and makes a poor conclusion to the article. I would like to remove it. Having a source does not protect an addition from being WP:IRRELEVANT and of WP:UNDUE weight. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree; I refer you to my reasoning in the GA review discussion above. Along with GA reviewer Edge3 that makes two of us and one of you.
Also, while we're dropping P&G shortcuts, let me remind you of WP:BRD: You made a bold edit, I reverted, then we're supposed to discuss. You simply dropped this comment and didn't even wait two hours for a reply until you repeated your contested removal. Bad style, to say the least. I'm giving this another chance, by re-instated the consensus version and offering you another chance to enter actual, consensus-based discussion. If you simply want to get your way, please do it at an article that I didn't bring to GA standard. Thank you. --78.35.213.209 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I can only see two edits in your list of contributions, both of them from today. Between the start of this discussion and your response is a gap of 11 days, I'm sure you'll agree it is reasonable to conclude a discussion is over before such a span of time has elapsed. You are seriously misunderstanding GA status if you imagine it means that once it is agreed an article can no longer be changed. This very cycle of edits and reversions would most likely remove GA status in the event of a review. In any case, since my edit the article has been edited again by another user and so a new consensus has been established. You have not responded to my argument for cutting the section but in deference to your view, I offer a compromise edit that retains the AMD campaign as an example, but reduces detail that - while relevant to that particular campaign - is not relevant to an understanding of the National Debt Clock. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
"I can only see two edits in your list of contributions, both of them from today." -- Ever heard of dynamic IP addresses? If you whois-check all of the IP addresses on this talk page and 99.99% of those in the article history, they will turn out to be in the range of the same ISP.
"Between the start of this discussion and your response is a gap of 11 days, I'm sure you'll agree it is reasonable to conclude a discussion is over before such a span of time has elapsed." -- You left not two hours between your initial comment here and your revert. That is not a "reasonable" span of time.
"You are seriously misunderstanding GA status if you imagine it means that once it is agreed an article can no longer be changed." -- The GA version is a consensus version to which many people contributed (but first and foremost myself), contested --in such radical form-- by exactly one person: yourself. There have of course (as you no doubt must have noticed from a cursory glance at the article history) been many modifications since the GA discussion. But none as nonsensical and destructive as yours.
"In any case, since my edit the article has been edited again by another user and so a new consensus has been established."' -- Needless to say (or so I thought), we are talking specifically about the consensus to include or not include the AMD example. But ok, let me refute your logic: You say that since one guy edited the article since your removal, that means the version without the AMD example is now the consensus version. Bollocks. Consider that this article gets roughly 5,000 views per month, and since I wrote that paragraf, nobody saw anything wrong with it, let alone to the extent of seeing fit to remove it wholesale.
"You have not responded to my argument for cutting the section" -- Where did you discuss that proposal? But ok, that part: "AMD used the increasing public awareness of green computing and related environmental issues to thematically center their comparative advertising campaign around "raising awareness on a critical issue" illustrates that "the comparison in this case is based not merely on the fact that the campaign billboards show a running total of a certain sum of money". It is an important distinction since there have been a great many billboard projects with running totals of some kind which may to some extent or the other have been inspired by the National Debt Clock.
"I offer a compromise edit that retains the AMD campaign as an example, but reduces detail that - while relevant to that particular campaign - is not relevant to an understanding of the National Debt Clock."' -- You could have eased obvious tensions by not performing the edit on the article but proposing it here first. As noted above, the level of detail is relevant because there have been many billboards imitating the NDC, and the part you removed qualifies precisely why we mention the AMD campaign instead of others. That is also the reasoning you could have found, had you looked, in the GA discussion above. Let me quote it here for your convenience: "I've decided to focus on the AMD campaign as the most intriguing example because the comparison isn't reduced to "running total on a billboard of some kind". AMD imitated the NDC project to the extent that their ad campaign was thematically centered around "raising awareness on a critical issue". (AMD even put up one of their billboards near Times Square, which is also noted in the BusinessWeek article, but I left that detail out in order to avoid losing focus.)"
Having said all that, I do not take kindly to someone calling any part of my writing "irrelevant spam". And I do not agree with any part of your edit. As a courtesy, would you mind reverting yourself until we have reached a consensus here, be it between us or with the help of a third opinion or any other step of DR? Thank you. --87.78.170.245 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Your favoured edit suggests that the AMD advertisement bears remarkable similarities with the National Debt Clock because it is "raising awareness on a critical issue", "the increasing public awareness of green computing and related environmental issues". Thus, the AMD billboard is supposedly similar to the National Debt Clock because it records an objective figure to highlight an issue of general concern. In portraying AMD's marketing campaign as having the intention of raising environmental awareness you engage in WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and abandon WP:NPOV; errors made plain by the source you quote which does not - as you do - accept and repeat AMD's assertions at face value but characterises them as part of the company's "marketing gimmicks" and "stunts". Rather than hedging AMD's claims by attributing them to the organisation (as the source does) your original edit asserted as a fact that the numbers promoted by AMD "[track the] amount of money spent on electricity bills by companies running Intel-based servers". This assertion has serious implications since in the very source you use Intel directly refutes AMD's claims, but the article as originally written merely allowed them as facts. This misrepresentation of your source is why I would never restore the original edit: it's fundamentally dishonest.
You see AMD's billboard as comparable with the non-partisan ideology of Douglas Durst; I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style. Thankfully, there is no need for the article to express an opinion on this point, any more than there is a need to add balance to AMD's claims by quoting Intel's counter-argument, because the substance of an advertising campaign that - while originally scheduled to run for 7 months - may have existed for less than a few weeks is not relevant to a reader's understanding of the article's subject. The AMD billboard appeared to be calculating an uncontested total in the same way as the National Debt Clock, but, as your source records, this appearance of neutrality was spurious and for marketing purposes only, so it deserves no more mention than any other steadily accumulating totaliser. The comparison you're trying to make does not stand up, and because it doesn't, there's no point trying to make it.
For the benefit of any third opinion, my case is that by drawing a false parallel between a relatively fleeting advertisement intended only to boost sales and the non-partisan, non-commercial aims of the National Debt Clock, the original edit misrepresents the source on which it depends. In promoting a viewpoint that reflects one particular commercial interest at the cost of another it misleads readers. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"In portraying AMD's marketing campaign as having the intention of raising environmental awareness you engage in [...]" -- While it is correct that I apparently misread the source and thought that the discussed power-consumption issue is one of green computing, you should assume good faith and not personally attack me by insinuating that I intentionally misrepresented the source. By assuming bad faith with me and attacking me in this way, you are not helping this discussion.
"Intel directly refutes AMD's claims, but the article as originally written merely allowed them as facts." -- Erm, what. I am putting any quotes in quotation marks. Also, please do not pretend that your interest was in accuracy or in improving the paragraf at all. You simply wanted to remove it completely as "spam".
"accept and repeat AMD's assertions at face value" -- Again, (i) please do not assume that I did it intentionally, and (ii) what assertions are you talking about? A simple, openly sourced quote is not "presenting an opinion as fact" by any stretch.
"your original edit asserted as a fact that the numbers promoted by AMD "[track the] amount of money spent on electricity bills by companies running Intel-based servers"." -- No, it did not. You should maybe work on your text comprehension skills. The remark was put in quotation marks, with a reference attached and thereby most obviously not trying to pass off the source text as fact. Also, your concerns about the wording come across as slightly disingenious, considering that you didn't initially try to improve the wording but simply tried to remove the paragraf completely.
"You see AMD's billboard as comparable with the non-partisan ideology of Douglas Durst; I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style." -- Your attempt to ascribe personal views to me and intentions to my editing is sadly misguided but apparently representative of your style of "argumentation". I do of course not see any comparability between the two as being independent of AMD's marketing intentions. You are accusing me of not understanding or of deliberately ignoring/white-washing that AMD's advertising campaign is in fact an avertising campaign and nothing else. Why don't you just go ahead and accuse me of promoting AMD? That would at least be the intellectually honest move on your part. Seriously, dude: "I, however, agree with the characterisation of your source and see it as a promotional trick, a short-lived satirical appropriation of the Clock's style" -- Clearly implying that I do not see the AMD ad campaign as a promo trick etc is assuming so much bad faith and/or incompetence on my part that this is really a total conversation ender. You are saying that I am stupid and/or in AMD's pocket. And while clearly implying that, you are just using it as a dirty trick in your "argumentation", trying to bait me into a (well-deserved) personal attack of some kind or something. Sheesh.
"Thankfully, there is no need for the article to express an opinion on this point" -- The article never did "express an opinion", and even if it did, please stop pretending that your original intention was to improve the paragraf. It wasn't.
"this appearance of neutrality was spurious and for marketing purposes only, so it deserves no more mention than any other steadily accumulating totaliser" -- You are most welcome to replace the example with another, better fitting one. But, I have to note this yet again since you fail to do so, remember that your initial edit was not to improve the paragraf in any way but to just remove it wholesale.
In closing, while --again-- you are correct about the source, you have only now examined it and based your concerns around it. Your initial rationale was more along the lines of removing "spam", your concerns were not based on the source at all, and your intention was not to improve on what is there but to merely destroy it as "spam". Having re-assessed the sourced and witnessed your style of "argumentation", it is clear to me that you just want to get your way no matter what. I hereby give up. I give up the attempt to improve the destructive aspects of your edits, and I give up on my maintenance of this article which I held so dear until you came along. Shame. Be proud of yourself. --78.35.226.103 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The photograph of the Debt Clock looks like a 7-segment display, rather than a 5 x 7 dot matrix display. It is described as a dot matrix display in at least two places in the article, at the time that I write this comment. (Whereas dot matrix displays create imagery or alphanumerics with "pixels" that are usually arranged in a rectangular grid, a 7-segment display has luminous or light-modulating elements in a pattern that looks like an "8". LED clocks often use 7-segment displays.) I don't have any direct knowledge of this Clock - if I'm right, perhaps someone could update the article. Gregg Favalora (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The first clock was definitely a 5x7 dot matrix display, as can clearly be seen in the image Nationaldebtclock.jpg. The numerals in the new clock are designed to resemble the customary 7-segment look, but the display is in fact also a dot matrix, which can be seen in US_Debt_Clock_15-09-2009.JPG (if you enlarge the image to full size, you can see that the "segments" are made up of dots). --87.78.20.199 (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the first clock is not a 5 x 7 dot matrix display, as can clearly be seen in the image Nationaldebtclock.jpg. If you enlarge the image to full size, there are only 27, not the required 35 - note the 'black spaces' e.g. within the right-most numeral 7.
The new clock which can be seen in US_Debt_Clock_15-09-2009.JPG needs closer attention paid (and not just to the debt!) e.g. the very first numeral 1 - again note black space (typical of segment display).
The observation that each "segment" is made up of many dots (individual LEDs) does not constitute a dot matrix display. 121.200.234.61 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Despite having been editing around Wikipedia for a quite a few years (slacked off in more recent times, though), I've never had the opportunity to upload an image of any kind to the Commons, much less have it included in any article. That being said (please don't turn this into another debate similar to those already on here), I took a new photo of the clock on Tuesday, June 19 and the debt is substantially larger than in the 2009 photo currently in use (a good four trillion greater). I can probably figure it out, but failing that, could someone provide clear instructions?
Also, the bit about an overhaul of the clock to include more digits is rather outdated; it's very clear that the clock now permits a debt up to the unfathomable $100 Trillion (one Dollar shy, of course), and a family share of up to $999,999. I'll happily edit that part, myself, and the photo, if it's fine with you guys, sans wikilawyering, I'd like to also contribute to replace the existing photo. Thanks. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The image does not need to reflect a recent value. The current image is highly evocative and unless your image approaches its overall quality, I'm decidedly leaning toward keeping the current image.
The bit about a planned upgrade is indeed outdated. The problem is finding sources for the abandonment of those plans. You're welcome to look for such sources; when I looked not too long ago, I couldn't find any and reluctantly decided to leave it as is until someone comes up with a source. --87.79.99.92 (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include "Avenue of the Americas" as the location where the clock is? "Sixth Avenue" will suffice, and is a more common name used by New Yorkers. Seldom do people use "Avenue of the Americas". Besides, the AotA name, appended to the Sixth Avenue name, is too long. Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The article says that the second clock ran out of digits in 2008 when the national debt exceeded $10 trillion, but the image at the top of the article shows a national debt clock displaying a national debt of over $11 trillion. The article currently states that an overhaul or replacement of the second clock is planned to add an additional digit. Jecowa (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no source to support this and verifiable sources that show that the debt was never going down.  Perhaps the clock was down for maintenance or whathaveyou, but the claim is not only unsupported by factually incorrect, easily verified - https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm . Seola (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

The National Debt Clock - March 1989.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Saw clock near grand central station on 03' scary message while walking. History student at the time in NYC. It is comical to say the sign is nonpartisan because the new deal politics faced opposition in the 1940's from republicans. Bill Clintons advisor was my History teacher and I am sure, a sign like that is a partisan message.  
Source:  https://www.gcsehistory.com/faq/opposition_newdeal.html 2603:7000:B901:8500:4C72:557D:86BD:9931 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The 1993 Cannes-winning short by Bruno de Almeida called The Debt uses the Debt Clock as its central symbolic device. Also, there should be a mention of how the Reagan administration was the first to bring the US to 1 trillion and the George W. Bush administration the first to bring the US to 2 trillion and then 3 trillion. Currently, I only saw a partisan (GOP) talking point about the Obama administration. 107.77.192.65 (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)