Jump to content

Talk:Doomsday event

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the archived discussion of a merged/redirected page.

List of doomsday scenarios

[edit]

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate articles?

[edit]

This article is a duplicate of End of civilization. Forgetting the article titles, which are just idioms, the content of the articles is the same. -- Stbalbach 12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they have evolved in that direction over time, as editors have copied material from one to the other. Conceptually there is certainly significant overlap, but also a distinction to be made. In my own edits to the Doomsday event article, I've tried to keep the focus on specific catastrophic events, while the End of civilization article, on the other hand, can encompass developments and scenarios so protracted that they would not reasonably qualify as events. Gradual Societal collapse, for example, would entail the end of civilization but not a doomsday event. - WikiPedant 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
End of Civilization is not related to Societal collapse - Societal collapse is about historical research into why and how past societies failed - it's serious scholarship based on historical research. End of Civilization and Doomsday event are future studies. Historians and futurists are like oil and water. Making a distinction between events that happen suddenly and events that take time is interesting, but not really a reason to create separate articles, the scholarship in this area is the same. The discussion is a trigger for catastrophic change. I think what has happened is someone created an idiom article title which is now being interpreted literally, creating an artificial split between these two articles over a fairly banal distinction that no one draws in the real world (look at any of the websites or books on these future studies, they make no such distinction). -- Stbalbach 14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition

[edit]

Citing dictionary definitions in order to define an idiomatic phrase is original research. There is a school of scholarship surrounding these discussions. Is there some reason you are unable or unwilling to discussion that school of scholarship? This article is original research. We are supposed to report on what other people say, not make up our own version from dictionaries. -- Stbalbach 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stbalbach -- You are a well-established editor who raises good discussion points. Although I've edited this article off and on, I didn't create it and did not invent the term "doomsday event." I originally found the article when I tried a WP look-up for this term, which I've encountered in the past. A Google search finds many instances of the term and it appears to have entered English usage some time in the past couple of decades. This compound term itself is not yet in any dictionary that I'm aware of, so I'm just trying to nail down its meaning by citing straightforward, mainstream dictionary definitions of its constituents. There appears to be ample precedent for invoking dictionary definitions in the lead sentences of articles. Some thoughts on some of your other points:
  • As for citing sources, the article is essentially an explanation of an umbrella term for a set of kinds of events, and it consists mostly of internal links to the articles about each of those kinds of events, where the detailed citations are more appropriately to be found (although, admittedly, some of the linked articles are themselves still pretty rough efforts).
  • This article doesn't strike me as one that has or especially needs to have any scholarly basis. Like so much of Wikipedia, it is a descriptive popular culture item. (To be sure, where pop culture leaves off and scholarship begins is another interesting question. And scholars can certainly study pop culture. But so far I don't know of any who have studied the usage of "doomsday event.")
  • Bottom Line: I honestly do not think the article contains original research. It's just a description of a relatively recent term that has found its way into English usage, citing the dictionary definitions of the constituents of the term, and fleshing that out with lots of linked examples found in other WP articles. Nothing very original about that.
Respectfully - WikiPedant 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about global warming? Its possible effects seem to fit the definition stated in the article. AstroHurricane001 19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPedant, you said "This article doesn't strike me as one that has or especially needs to have any scholarly basis". In fact Wikipedia has two core policies: NPOV and Verifiable sources. *Everything* is supposed to be sourced. Wikipedia must rely on scholarly sources, when available, per WP:V. There is in fact a scholarly tradition called future studies and the term most commonly used for these types of "doomsday events" is Existential risk. If this article is going to be just about the phrase in popular culture, than it should probably be renamed to something like Existential risk in popular culture and list all the popular culture phrases in one place (others such as "End of the World"), and discuss who uses it in popular culture, why it used, etymology issues etc... listing the actual events would be handled under the more scholarly articles since they provide scholarly citations and are not related to popular culture issues. -- Stbalbach 16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

[edit]

IMO, if this article wants to survive an WP:LISTWP:NOT#INFO accusation, it should gain some references and prose; or: it should be trimmed and merged with one of the many other similarly themed articles. Can anyone think of two or three categories or a template that can be added?

And what of the other articles in the so-called scientific eschatology (ie, futurology?) category? All thoughts are welcome, of course. Xaxafrad 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed in the AfD, and based on my over 2 years experience with these articles on Wikipedia, this is a very complex topic involving a dozen or more articles. Someone suggested creating a WikiProject and I agree that is the way to move forward. The issues here are much more complicated than they appear on the surface. -- Stbalbach 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems logical to look at precedence as a way around the confusion.. One choice with a similar, broad range of scenarios, implications, and so on, would be the Origin of life article.. rather than reinvent something. It seems like this article successfully entertains the spectrum of theories and topics, and appears to act as a good start for the topic tree as a whole, and might be helpful in setting up an appropriate framework for the "End of Life" (or whatever name it is given).. WarBaCoN 17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After glancing the the Origin of life article, and giving brief thoughts to how Doomsday event could mirror the layout, I worried about the WP:NOT#CRYSTAL policy's applicability:
Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and 
therefore inappropriate. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, 
essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; 
an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
(emphasis mine) Xaxafrad 20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That origin of life is kind of different, theories of past events, we have lots of articles like that. Theories of future events is much more difficult for a lot of reasons. For one, it attracts lots of quack-pot theories and its often hard to tell the difference between science fiction and science reality. So you have to support your theory giving some sort of idea how likely it is to happen. Since no one can guess the future, and anything is possible to some degree, and nothing can be tested, this becomes difficult. Further, how do you even define the scope of the article.. what does "doomsday" mean? What does "end of civilization" mean? What does civilization mean, what does "the end" mean. They are all subjective questions. So even determining what to call the article, much less what to include in it, becomes very difficult. End of civilization is a serious attempt by many editors to accomplish this goal but it still has problems.

As for Crystal, we can report on theories other people have presented. Part of the problem, again, is how to determine what theories are real and what are science fiction, because they are often hard to tell apart. Just look at Exit Mundi for example. That is why it has to be more than just a list, it has to qualify the theory with text giving some idea of how likely the theory is (with citations). -- Stbalbach 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the theories, or categories of theories, have articles already.. we just need a good overview. Priority should be bringing together the assorted "end of existence" articles.. It makes sense to have one article that summarizes all categories, whether they are man-induced, astronomical, religious, natural environmental disaster, or other.. Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth perhaps should accept a merger and redirect of any information from this article?
additional thoughts follow; may be long-winded**: The origins of life was simply a starting point, which happens to nicely outline a set of theories, both theological and scientific (..or other).. The example was simply to show a unity of this information, appropriately directing readers through the array of possibilities, which seemed to be the topic to debate in the event of a keep on the AfD.. Of course every theory for an end to life will need some critical thought, but every theory does not affect the whole. Certainly there is enough popular culture, religious writings, and scientific backing on the topic. Just in the past 100 years there have been real and debated fears of nuclear death, pandemics, religious ends, cataclysmic global weather shifts, Y2K, and meteor type demises of earth and/or occupants. Additionally there are historical or religious precedence for several theories (dinosaur extinction scenarios, biblical flooding..). Another marker of importance could be organizations or groups dedicated to the prevention of such an event.. presumably if nobody is preparing for it, then it is not such a concern.. examples could be meteor detection programs (Spaceguard), Kyoto Protocol. I think the crystal ball stuff is more for general and unfounded speculation, which seems pretty straight forward on a case by case basis.. (On a side: I get a little frustrated about the tendency to use the NOT guidelines as some kind of rules that override legitimacy.. they are not even rules (nor are they static, ie not trivia.. the death of many now legit article), they are helpful guides for the masses to make educated decisions about the value of content.. while important to consider, they occasionally do more harm than good.. but that is for a different discussion, and was not directed at anybody..) ok I'm done. WarBaCoN 18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
End of the world already serves as a high-level jump-off point. End of civilization was (supposed) to have been the science-related disasters, but its become fragmented across many articles now. It's still the best of the bunch though. -- Stbalbach 17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister topics

[edit]

Intially listed alphabetically: Subjectively sorted by conceptual hierarchy:

Unsorted:

Are there any fields of science that would be appropriate, either for this article, or others? IMO, eschatology, when viewed as a philosophical concept, precedes both scientific and religious investigations, while futurology is the more specific, purely scientific avenue of inquisitions. If a line needs to be drawn between mythos building and deductive research, this seems like a good one, but is possibly WP:OR.

In any case, I started this talk section to collect links to the variously related articles, and assess them in some kind of preliminary manner. Feel free to edit/add/whatever to the above list. Xaxafrad 00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should avoid the clearly religious articles. -- Stbalbach 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But of course. My reason for putting them there was for illustrative purposes: definition by distinction. Wait until they're rearranged by depth/topic. ;) (I'm not sure the list is comprehensive) Xaxafrad 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant article?

[edit]

I think this article is redundant. All it does is to list some cheesy sci-fi scenarios. 91.66.153.52 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, everything in the "Natural" list is possible, although some are more likely than others. Admittedly, the rapture is fictional, but most of the artificial are possible if not very likely. Just because Sci Fi used things doesn't make them less likely. 82.21.111.208 (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies

[edit]

Is there any way we could permaban "Zombie" and variations (undead, etc) just for this article. I hate my RC feed when I see this page, and sometimes ignore thinking some other editor will take care of it, only to have the info remain there for a day or two. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I frickin' agree!!! This article has already been flagged for "tone", and to see this Zombie looniness keep on popping up is pretty paethetic! BobbieCharlton (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to the talk page to ask WTF on the Zombie thing... I'll take it to myself to check the page as pften as possible and erase the reference. 201.87.65.244 (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree also. The cited references are reliable sources about what would happen if a zombie apocalypse occurred, but do not state this is a realistic possibility, which is what we care about on this page. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must be completely missing something then. When a government agency like the CDC takes the time to create a 'Zombie Apocalypse' preparedness plan, that certainly grants it merit. When universities and government agencies take it upon themselves to plan for and study the mathematical vectors behind a zombie apocalypse, it must certainly be taken into account. Reliable sources can be dug up all day. This is simply a case of you don't like it. 76.112.25.222 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Flare

[edit]

There is another natural doomsday event scenario which it seems you have forgotten. The consequences of a possible huge Solar Flare could be disastrous for the earth's atmosphere (complete ozon layer destruction)and mass extinction event after the proton wind reaches earth. I will add the refference with quotations in the natural events unless there is a dissagreement.Polemos (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GW statement

[edit]

I marked the statement 'global warming leading to global climate change as a consequence of humanity's industrial abuse of nature.' as NPOV. Comments before I remove it?-- φ OnePt618Talk φ 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual Semantics

[edit]

I posit that "Doomsday" is a specific idiomatic term and is therefore singular and separate.

a) Specific idiomatic term:

  • From cultural referencing: eg. Dr. Strangelove et al.
  • As used in plain speaking eg. "That is a Doomsday Scenario!" not "End of Days" or other phrase.

b) Singular:

  • End of Days is much more limited to theological cosmology and beliefs
  • Apocalypse is usually rendered in reference to man-made catastrophe or natural occurance
  • Doomsday has culturally acquired a reference to a ELE brought about by human intervention, especially scientific practices. As such it is appropriate to deal with this subject on its own page with the distinctions explicit.

I do agree that the article is meandering and not a class-A article. It does require 1) language cleaning for clarity and technical robustness, 2) scientific oversight, 3) aggregation of near-identical terms etc. This may require a complete rewrite. However I do think Doomsday is a quantifiable and suitable topic for an article.

Plutophanes Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This appears to be a marginally re-written version of an article published in Discover Magazine 10 years ago (specifically DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 10, October 2000 by Corey S. Powell). A copy of that article can be found here. No, it is not an EXACT duplicate, it's just an extremely close match, of a type that would ordinarily be grounds for a plagiarism charge in academic circles. The article editors may have something to say about this of course, so leaving a note before I request an administrator to investigate. - Markeer 00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Likellyhood of each event?

[edit]

I think it would be good if the article had the likellyhood of each of the events mentioned taking place. --TiagoTiago (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doomsday_event&oldid=1136675463"