This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Doomer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-26. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-04-15. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The term "doomer" is nothing but a buzzword. That's the reason why there are no reliable sources for it. It's used on places like reddit and 4chan and maybe in a few articles if reporters try to appeal to a younger audience. It is not a clear cut term and has no definite meaning. Including "doomer" is like including "360noscope" or "thot". 37.201.117.195 ( talk) 06:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomer · Katefan0 (scribble) 21:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Why does this article only talk about peak oil doomers??? Doomer is a very general category Volterwd ( talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I missed the category section... at the bottom of the page... my own fault since I arrived through a link and it's not in the URL nvm Volterwd ( talk) 12:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I came across this while looking for something else. They say "Doomsters", but I figure it's close enough. NJGW ( talk) 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Doomers of today are the prophets of tomorrow.
I am a doomer.
Time Will Tell
67.140.20.67 ( talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
How can one call themselves a "doomer"? It sounds like an insult/joke that makes light of everything that is at stake. I don't think we ever needed this silly term. 76.87.18.193 ( talk) 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)KnightShade
Doomers of today are the prophets of tomorrow? Shame it didn't work out like that for the Y2K freaks. And, BTW, that's a subspecies of doomer that IMO should certainly be mentioned and discussed on this page. 75.94.230.111 ( talk) 22:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
someone should rewrite it to be more readable, I had to read it four times before I could understand it AlexWangombe ( talk) 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think all of the people who behave as described in this article share all the properties described as doomer-like. The term is in this article associated with a belief system that is cataclysmic. It is possible to want to build a Permaculture village because it is the right thing to do, from among the many positive things one might do, not because it is the only way to survive societal collapse. "Assuming facts not introduced as evidence." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.78.97 ( talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
A Doomer is someone who plays Doom, surely? (Or am I showing my age?) 2fort5r ( talk) 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
There are currently 6 references noted on this page. The first 4 are dead (all from energybulletin.net), the 5th is a blog and the 6th points to the personal website of Toby Hemenway. It would be good if someone could add som reliable sources for this page (personally I'd prefer mainstream news outlets / peer-reviewed journals, etc but anything reliable would do) 87.112.153.66 ( talk) 01:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
A doomer is anyone who believes mankind is doomed, and enjoys that belief. I've often wondered if it's a "grass is greener on the other side" thing ("I'm not happy with industrialized civilization intact, maybe I'll be happy after civilization collapses"). But it just occurred to me to wonder how much it's related to a comment a friend just made, a probably subconscious adaptation to current events in an attempt to be happy: "Just decide you like chaos and radiation and you'll be happy :)". This community may be helpful for understanding: http://so-very-doomed.livejournal.com/ — Darxus ( talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of fairness this page should either have the opposing view point or the opposing view point on the opposing school of thought should be removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.81.152.179 ( talk) 21:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Cornucopian" has a paragraph, "Description by an opposing view", which would apply equally I believe, to the "Doomer" moniker. Specifically, for many of those who I know who would fall under the "Doomer" description as currently defined in Wikipedia, they are merely engaged in conveying the obvious, predicting general outcomes based on hard data and logical hypotheses. Also, there are well known public figures, considered as "Doomers" in the mainstream, like Chris Martenson or Richard Heinberg, who are actually very careful to predicate their general predictions as being probabilistic and far from definitive. People who fall into this category are often self described as "realists", and find the term "Doomer" both inaccurate and a barrier that impedes their attempts to help educate the public regarding impending economic and ecological problems, with their objective of inspiring mitigation and constructive changes in people's behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.159.149 ( talk) 18:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
What a bunch of piffle.
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOTE Just because a small group of anti-environmentalists on the political debate
Newsgroup; alt.fan.rush-limbaugh (and similar dittohead & or an anti-environmental site or two,) started using "doom and gloomers,", "doomers, and "gloomers," etc doesn't mean it deserves a Wiki article. Cheesh! Should we also include Limbaugh's "environmental whackos," I'm sure we would find it much easier to ref. For: "environmental-whacko"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/tags.php?tag=environmental%20whacko
http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/evironmental-whacko-vs-environmental-whacko/
https://westvirginia.forums.rivals.com/threads/whats-an-environmental-whacko-to-do.2412/ About 111,000 results (0.58 seconds)
"Did you mean: environmental-wacko?" About 138,000 results (0.36 seconds)
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/en/Environmental_wacko
--
2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:D027:DE64:28F5:7ADF (
talk)
21:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford
I have doubts that posts at resilience-dot-org are really what we mean when we say "reliable source". See discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 15:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This word appears to be a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM and the article should probably be deleted. It will need quality WP:SECONDARY and [{WP:Reliable sources]] that discuss the phrase itself. If you know of any please add 'em NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 12:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it a secular version of e.g. Millerianianism? Zezen ( talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The word "doomer" is not in the Oxford English Dictionary and I am unable to find a reliable source for the usage in the lead. I also found nothing on Google Ngram. I suggest that that it be merged into the article on Global warming, in some way, or here [1]. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Rwood128 ( talk) 14:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
With Jlevi ( talk · contribs)'s recent edits, the article has brought back the topic of a recent meme, based on Wojak. While it seems to be properly referenced, it has no relation to the original meaning of the word Doomer, which is about environmental concerns rather the state of loneliness that surrounds this new meme. Clearly, this content needs to be moved to aforementioned article. Hakken ( talk) 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Vacatio ( talk) 04:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC) I'm a first time Wikipedia talk-pager, but after reading this article, I felt I had a duty to call on someone less lazy than myself to fix this wretched mess. Doomers, at least in my fairly ample experience, are not people obsessed with global political issues. They're just depressed 20 somethings who fairly actively engage in self-harming activities(eg excessive internet use, smoking, bad sleeping habits) who reflect their internal misery as external pessimism.
Do we need to give attribution to the BBC? It seems like we can say something in wikivoice if an outlet like the BBC says it. And if not, then would additional sources allow this? Beyond this specific issue, thanks for the copy-edit. Jlevi ( talk) 17:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I occasionally see sources sufficiently weak that I suspect using them here would be WP:OR if I were to try to integrate them. Nonetheless, they may be useful in some ways or in the hands of a more experienced Wikipedian, so I'll collect them here:
Jlevi ( talk) 11:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Jlevi ( talk) 01:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Jlevi ( talk) 01:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Jlevi ( talk) 11:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
---
Jlevi ( talk) 01:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
A Doomer is a young mand who has a gloomy, depressing view of the world and human nature. It has more to do with the subjective experience of an individual than with objective reality (like global warming etc) -- Bageense (disc.) 22:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been thinking about how this page has been tricky to find sourcing for, and how the sourcing seems somewhat confused.
Given that almost all sourcing is in the 'media' section, and all details in that section are specifically about the possibility of climate apocalypse in particular, what do people think about just merging into that page? I think all of the authors here are scattered around that page, and we could perhaps consolidate those mentions into a single section. Then just redirect that page over there. Jlevi ( talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
As the Wojack article states, the Doomer Wojack and the real-life philosophy of doomerism are intertwined. For the hatnote to say "not to be confused with" instead of "this article is about the real-world philosophy of climate grief, for the 4chan meme see Wojack Doomer" is misleading.
Perhaps we should even including a heading about the Wojack meme, it seems relevant here as well as on the Wojack article.
Reading both articles, they repeat the same information. RobotGoggles ( talk) 02:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The "doomer" mindset clearly did not originate with the 4chan meme, it was merely what popularized it, which I think is notable enough to be discussed. The r/doomer subreddit was created in the 00's, and the 4chan meme began in 2018 at the latest. However, I couldn't find much primary information online about the doomer culture before 2018, and while I will be looking for it, I think it best the Wojak information be included in this article. Clearly, doomers are not merely motivated by climate concerns, but a general sense of hopelessness. Hence the source of The Atlantic. RobotGoggles ( talk) 15:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The Common themes section apparently had old, inaccurate information a few edits ago about far-right and far-left doomers, and the information did not reflect the source provided. The information I replaced it with, in the current edit, is taken from a Doomer's personal post on r/doomer, which is a Primary source, and not suitable for encyclopedic information. It is better than the previous information, which was completely made-up, but the section needs secondary or tertiary sources, not the personal post currently cited. I do think, however, due to the support of the post within the Doomer community, that, as a primary source, it is relatively strong, and I can't find any stronger primary sources. If someone reports on that post in particular, that may count as secondary, or if a secondary source reports on general doomer attitudes online, please replace the information provided and provide the improved source. Until then, the Primary sources template should remain under the header. RobotGoggles ( talk) 17:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this removal.
I agree with this revert. Even after looking for sources, I don't think this can be included yet based on coverage in RS.
Nonetheless, this is clearly a thing, and it might be worth including at some point in the future (or if I'm just missing RS coverage). I found mention of this in Mouthing Off Magazine, which is a volunteer-run student paper (I think?), and a one-line reference in the Mel Magazine piece.
Don't think it's sufficient for inclusion yet. Jlevi ( talk) 22:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some possibly reliable sources about "doomer." As a new cultural phenomenon, it is mainly documented in arts and chatty news-magazine articles. And apparently in some flavor it is very widespread among young people.
https://mouthingoffmagazine.com/the-doomer-the-most-important-meme-of-a-generation/
https://lwlies.com/articles/she-dies-tomorrow-amy-seimetz-doomer-generation/
Annika Morling (movie review): The word ‘doomer’ emerged as a meme in 2018, referring to a caricature of a forlorn twentysomething man who has given up on finding meaning in life. Since then, ‘doomerism’ has come to refer more broadly to a pessimism experienced distinctly by young people, who see themselves as coming of age into a world plagued by housing and employment crises, general economic instability, and impending ecological collapse.
https://caughtinsouthie.com/features/okay-doomersome-thoughts-on-doomscrolling-and-doomers/
https://futurism.com/the-byte/humanity-is-doomed-poll
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3918955 Lancet preprint study of youth climate anxiety. Discussion A large proportion of children and young people around the world report significant emotional distress and a wide range of painful, complex emotions (sad, afraid, angry, powerless, helpless, guilty, ashamed, despair, hurt, grief, depressed). Similarly, large numbers report experiencing some functional impact, and identify pessimistic beliefs about the future (people have failed to care for the planet; the future is frightening; humanity is doomed; they won’t have access to the same opportunities their parents had; things they value will be destroyed; security is threatened; and they are hesitant to have children).
Artemisia-californica ( talk) 17:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC) jlevi I see I am duplicating some of your refs. Artemisia-californica ( talk) 18:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
If doomer philosophy falls on a political divide (I think it does), the article could be improved by expressing this. 57.135.233.22 ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)