406:
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.
180:-- 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:
148:. 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). --
373:
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.
29:
815:
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
405:
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
372:
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
183:
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
965:. 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. -
933:
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
380:
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,
303:
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
165:
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
654:
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
187:
This article doesn't strike me as one that has or especially needs to have any scholarly basis. Like so much of
Knowledge (XXG), 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
285:
As discussed in the AfD, and based on my over 2 years experience with these articles on
Knowledge (XXG), 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
247:
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
194:
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
391:
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,
717:
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.
738:
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.
271:
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?
95:
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
960:
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
928:
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
341:
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
784:
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.
685:
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)
662:
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.
872:
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
223:
WikiPedant, you said "This article doesn't strike me as one that has or especially needs to have any scholarly basis". In fact
Knowledge (XXG) has two core policies: NPOV and
39:
560:
531:
524:
393:
299:
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
426:
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. --
769:
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.
621:
754:
I frickin' agree!!! This article has already been flagged for "tone", and to see this Zombie looniness keep on popping up is pretty paethetic!
820:
770:
719:
275:
And what of the other articles in the so-called scientific eschatology (ie, futurology?) category? All thoughts are welcome, of course.
703:
239:. If this article is going to be just about the phrase in popular culture, than it should probably be renamed to something like
816:
a zombie apocalypse, it must certainly be taken into account. Reliable sources can be dug up all day. This is simply a case of
136:
is about historical research into why and how past societies failed - it's serious scholarship based on historical research.
108:
article, on the other hand, can encompass developments and scenarios so protracted that they would not reasonably qualify as
798:
495:
240:
841:
There is another natural doomsday event scenario which it seems you have forgotten. The consequences of a possible huge
643:
35:
853:
wind reaches earth. I will add the refference with quotations in the natural events unless there is a dissagreement.
616:
648:
53:
759:
655:
needs to be drawn between mythos building and deductive research, this seems like a good one, but is possibly
227:. *Everything* is supposed to be sourced. Knowledge (XXG) must rely on scholarly sources, when available, per
824:
774:
723:
979:
I think it would be good if the article had the likellyhood of each of the events mentioned taking place. --
707:
214:
381:
it has to qualify the theory with text giving some idea of how likely the theory is (with citations). --
946:
846:
858:
817:
346:. An article on Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not.
984:
28:
755:
535:
510:
423:
374:
188:
study pop culture. But so far I don't know of any who have studied the usage of "doomsday event.")
137:
125:
105:
74:
854:
744:
908:
As used in plain speaking eg. "That is a
Doomsday Scenario!" not "End of Days" or other phrase.
790:
580:
133:
129:
113:
264:
942:
638:
633:
544:
518:
489:
466:
419:
236:
377:
is a serious attempt by many editors to accomplish this goal but it still has problems.
330:
268:
980:
596:
575:
402:
201:
117:
656:
922:
Apocalypse is usually rendered in reference to man-made catastrophe or natural occurance
702:
I think this article is redundant. All it does is to list some cheesy sci-fi scenarios.
673:
570:
565:
503:
477:
427:
382:
369:
326:
322:
300:
287:
249:
232:
210:
177:
167:
149:
145:
141:
97:
86:
60:
228:
224:
873:
740:
686:
663:
407:
355:
305:
276:
845:
could be disastrous for the earth's atmosphere (complete ozon layer destruction)and
966:
786:
166:
report on what other people say, not make up our own version from dictionaries. --
396:
perhaps should accept a merger and redirect of any information from this article?
116:, for example, would entail the end of civilization but not a doomsday event. -
842:
607:
555:
462:
592:
482:
472:
611:
600:
587:
962:
549:
213:? Its possible effects seem to fit the definition stated in the article.
450:
235:
and the term most commonly used for these types of "doomsday events" is
988:
969:
950:
877:
862:
828:
806:
778:
763:
748:
727:
711:
689:
676:
666:
455:
430:
410:
385:
358:
308:
290:
279:
252:
217:
204:
170:
152:
120:
89:
63:
919:
End of Days is much more limited to theological cosmology and beliefs
850:
78:
184:
of the linked articles are themselves still pretty rough efforts).
100:
article, I've tried to keep the focus on specific catastrophic
23:
672:
I think we should avoid the clearly religious articles. --
18:
This is the archived discussion of a merged/redirected page
943:Αγαθος και Σωφος, Σωφος και Καλος, Καλος και Αγαθος
401:
additional thoughts follow; may be long-winded**: The
392:
religious, natural environmental disaster, or other..
905:
From cultural referencing: eg. Dr. Strangelove et al.
552:(a dab page linking to the following articles:)
492:(a dab page linking to the following articles:)
231:. There is in fact a scholarly tradition called
77:. Forgetting the article titles, which are just
422:already serves as a high-level jump-off point.
561:Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
532:Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
525:Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
394:Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth
446:Subjectively sorted by conceptual hierarchy:
329:could mirror the layout, I worried about the
59:Could use votes to save this article, thanks
8:
195:articles. Nothing very original about that.
325:article, and giving brief thoughts to how
344:credible research that embody predictions
262:IMO, if this article wants to survive an
622:Apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction
7:
286:than they appear on the surface. --
241:Existential risk in popular culture
14:
891:idiomatic term and is therefore
85:of the articles is the same. --
38:on March 7, 2007. The result of
27:
444:Intially listed alphabetically:
73:This article is a duplicate of
34:This article was nominated for
64:22:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
989:02:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
887:I posit that "Doomsday" is a
749:11:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
617:End of the world (philosophy)
496:Ultimate fate of the universe
205:19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
171:14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
153:14:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
121:20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
90:12:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
644:Mutually assured destruction
970:00:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
712:18:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
253:16:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
248:popular culture issues. --
218:19:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
1004:
975:Likellyhood of each event?
764:16:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
728:11:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
690:01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
677:00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
667:00:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
431:17:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
411:18:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
386:20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
359:20:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
309:17:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
291:18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
280:05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
54:List of doomsday scenarios
951:15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
649:Technological singularity
956:Possible Copyright issue
900:Specific idiomatic term:
878:20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
829:22:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
807:00:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
863:09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
779:23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
541:Links in intro section:
333:policy's applicability:
321:After glancing the the
893:singular and separate
847:mass extinction event
161:Dictionary definition
883:Contextual Semantics
521:(closes a link loop)
451:Category:Eschatology
536:End of Civilization
511:End of planet Earth
456:Category:Futurology
424:End of civilization
375:End of civilization
138:End of Civilization
126:End of Civilization
106:End of civilization
75:End of civilization
69:Duplicate articles?
818:you don't like it.
698:Redundant article?
225:Verifiable sources
128:is not related to
581:Doomsday argument
215:AstroHurricane001
134:Societal collapse
130:Societal collapse
114:Societal collapse
50:
49:
995:
938:for an article.
803:
795:
639:Human extinction
634:Existential risk
545:End of the world
519:End of the world
490:End of the world
467:End of the world
420:End of the world
354:(emphasis mine)
237:Existential risk
31:
24:
1003:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
994:
993:
992:
977:
958:
885:
870:
839:
802:
799:
794:
791:
736:
700:
597:Futures studies
576:Doomsday device
500:See also links:
441:
403:origins of life
347:
260:
200:Respectfully -
163:
71:
57:
12:
11:
5:
1001:
999:
976:
973:
957:
954:
931:
930:
923:
920:
910:
909:
906:
884:
881:
869:
866:
838:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
810:
809:
800:
792:
767:
766:
756:BobbieCharlton
735:
732:
731:
730:
699:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
680:
679:
652:
651:
646:
641:
636:
627:
626:
625:
624:
619:
614:
605:
604:
603:
590:
585:
584:
583:
578:
573:
571:Doomsday event
568:
566:Doomsday Clock
563:
558:
547:
542:
529:
528:
527:
522:
516:
508:
507:
506:
504:Doomsday event
501:
487:
486:
485:
480:
478:Apocalypticism
475:
459:
458:
453:
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
414:
413:
398:
397:
370:origin of life
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:WP:NOT#CRYSTAL
327:Doomsday event
323:Origin of life
314:
313:
312:
311:
301:Origin of life
294:
293:
259:
256:
233:future studies
221:
220:
211:global warming
207:
198:
197:
196:
189:
185:
162:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
146:future studies
142:Doomsday event
98:Doomsday event
70:
67:
56:
51:
48:
47:
40:the discussion
32:
22:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1000:
991:
990:
986:
982:
974:
972:
971:
968:
964:
955:
953:
952:
948:
944:
939:
937:
927:
924:
921:
918:
917:
916:
915:
907:
904:
903:
902:
901:
896:
894:
890:
882:
880:
879:
875:
867:
865:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
836:
830:
826:
822:
821:76.112.25.222
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
808:
804:
796:
788:
783:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
771:201.87.65.244
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
733:
729:
725:
721:
720:82.21.111.208
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
697:
691:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
665:
660:
658:
650:
647:
645:
642:
640:
637:
635:
632:
631:
630:
623:
620:
618:
615:
613:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
582:
579:
577:
574:
572:
569:
567:
564:
562:
559:
557:
554:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
540:
539:
537:
533:
530:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
491:
488:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
470:
468:
464:
461:
460:
457:
454:
452:
449:
448:
447:
445:
439:Sister topics
438:
432:
429:
425:
421:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
404:
400:
399:
395:
390:
389:
388:
387:
384:
378:
376:
371:
360:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
310:
307:
302:
298:
297:
296:
295:
292:
289:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
273:
270:
267:
266:
257:
255:
254:
251:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
219:
216:
212:
208:
206:
203:
199:
193:
190:
186:
182:
181:
179:
175:
174:
173:
172:
169:
160:
154:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
123:
122:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
93:
92:
91:
88:
84:
80:
76:
68:
66:
65:
62:
55:
52:
45:
41:
37:
33:
30:
26:
25:
19:
16:
15:
978:
959:
941:Plutophanes
940:
935:
932:
925:
913:
911:
899:
897:
892:
888:
886:
871:
868:GW statement
840:
768:
737:
704:91.66.153.52
701:
661:
653:
628:
443:
442:
379:
367:
343:
304:is given)..
274:
263:
261:
244:
222:
192:Bottom Line:
191:
164:
109:
104:, while the
101:
82:
72:
58:
43:
17:
843:Solar Flare
837:Solar Flare
608:Eschatology
556:Eschatology
463:Eschatology
269:WP:NOT#INFO
209:What about
112:. Gradual
981:TiagoTiago
849:after the
629:Unsorted:
593:Futurology
483:Armageddon
473:Apocalypse
465:(links to
202:WikiPedant
118:WikiPedant
934:suitable
929:explicit.
914:Singular:
739:Thanks!--
674:Stbalbach
612:End times
601:Futurists
588:TEOTWAWKI
515:See also:
428:Stbalbach
383:Stbalbach
288:Stbalbach
250:Stbalbach
243:and list
178:Stbalbach
168:Stbalbach
150:Stbalbach
87:Stbalbach
61:MapleTree
926:Doomsday
889:specific
874:OnePt618
741:Cerejota
687:Xaxafrad
664:Xaxafrad
550:Doomsday
408:WarBaCoN
356:Xaxafrad
306:WarBaCoN
277:Xaxafrad
36:deletion
967:Markeer
855:Polemos
787:CWenger
734:Zombies
265:WP:LIST
83:content
851:proton
176:Hello
110:events
102:events
81:, the
79:idioms
936:topic
657:WP:OR
534:(aka
368:That
985:talk
963:here
947:talk
876:φ
859:talk
825:talk
775:talk
760:talk
745:talk
724:talk
708:talk
610:and
229:WP:V
144:are
140:and
44:keep
42:was
912:b)
898:a)
659:.
258:AfD
245:all
987:)
949:)
895:.
861:)
827:)
805:)
797:•
777:)
762:)
747:)
726:)
710:)
599:,
595:,
538:)
469:)
132:-
983:(
945:(
857:(
823:(
801:@
793:^
789:(
785:–
773:(
758:(
743:(
722:(
706:(
46:.
20:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
