Talk:Doomer

message: 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)
replies: text: EMALIROVANNOE SUDNO! OKOSHKA, TUMBOCHKA, KROVAT'! But, seriously, a "doomer" is quite an archetype these days. Or a quasiarchetype, if you will. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: 4chan Buzzword

message: 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)
thread_title: AFD

message: Why does this article only talk about peak oil doomers??? Doomer is a very general category Volterwd (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's supposed to be a specific usage of the term.  If there are other uses, the there should be other articles, a disambiguation page, and this article would become Doomer (peak oil).  Feel free to make some more articles if you see the need.  NJGW (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: General category

message: 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)
thread_title:  term used in media 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This page should absolutely stay. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lead section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mixed messages 

message: A Doomer is someone who plays Doom, surely? (Or am I showing my age?) 2fort5r (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not essentially. Regards, average "doomer music" fan 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: DooM

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable sources / references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article is way off 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Needs an opposing view point 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Noteability? Rename article to: "Gloomer" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion at RSN 

message: 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)
replies: text: I support this NewsAndEventsGuy–see my comments below, re my failure to find anything relating to this word–I cannot even find it used anywhere on Conservapedia! Rwood128 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are there any reliable sources 

message: Is it a secular version of e.g. Millerianianism? Zezen (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted above there is a dearth of reliable sources to support this article. If you have a reliable source saying something like that, or any good source about the topic, then fine, otherwise speculation will just lead to more uncited stuff in the article and its possible deletion. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious precedents? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Vacatio (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is completely innacurate 

message: 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: 
* Two Climate Analysts Weigh the Notion of a ‘Good’ Path in the Anthropocene (Dot Earth, Revkin, 2014): Revkin quotes Michael Tobis, who says, "But if I thought it [a good outcome] was out of reach, I’d go all doomer and hide in a cave." One-line quoted reference.
* How to Survive the Apocalypse (NYT, 2017) Uses the term several times, but doesn't analyze it. Using this source in an obvious way would probably lead to WP:SYNTH.
* She’s Ready: Just Add Water (NYT, 2008) Subject uses the term in a quote, comparing "doomer" against "prepper".
* There are two results on The Daily Dot. However, WP:RSP notes that the source is at times WP:UNDUE on account of its granular focus. I'll see what looks best. Sources:   
* A Beginner's Guide to Doomsday Prepper Cookbooks (Vice, 2018) Single-line mention in a quote. A self-described "prepper" differentiates himself from "doomers."
* Home at the End of Time: Robert Vicino Built an Underground City Where You Can Ride out the Apocalypse (Vice, 2012) Single-line reference alongside "prepper" as a separate category in Vice's own voice
* The Utopia Experiments (BBC segment on a book) "These were the ‘Doomers’, people who believed that a global catastrophe would happen within the next few years.”
* DMs With Andrew Yang: Plans, Memes, And Doomers (Buzzfeed News, 2019) A response by Andrew Yang about the NYmag piece describing him as a 'doomer.' BUT the article is entirely screenshots of text messages with Yang
* Five pathways to post-capitalist 'renaissance' by a former oil man (The Guardian, 2014) Single-line reference: "But despite his trenchant and uncompromising stance on the potentially catastrophic consequences of business as usual, Leggett is no doomer."
Jlevi (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak sources 

message: * (The Atlantic, 2020) The Misogynistic Joke That Became a Goth-Meme Fairy Tale Another 'doomer girl' meme-related article. 
* Against Nihilism (Buzzfeed News, 2019)
* Breaking up over climate change: My deep dark journey into doomer Facebook (ABC, 2019)
Jlevi (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better sources 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: In other words, it's more a way of life than a bundle of rational opinions about the world. --Bageense(disc.) 22:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi . Wikipedia uses (mostly) strong secondary sources to back up claims. Do you have any sources that support this claim? In particular, we had a discussion a little while ago in which we decided to separate this definition of doomer (which is backed up by a variety of secondary sources) from the meme template Wojak#Doomer. Jlevi (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  Also consider looking through the sources I compiled in the sections above. If you find any additional sources, please feel free to integrate them in the article or to simply add them to the collection on the talk page. Jlevi (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I wasn't aware that there were two definitions of a Doomer. Anyway, while we discuss, could we add a "not to be confused with" hatnote, or a similar one? --Bageense(disc.) 20:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. As you can see in the section above about the partial merge to wojak, the sources are somewhat confusing on the issue as well. Thank you for your edit! Jlevi (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I disagree with the definition given in the intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes to merge, but as Doomers might get worked up about a broader array of issues, I suggest the target for the merge should be Global_catastrophic_risk NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about the merge. When people think of "Doomers" they think of the cartoon character who is depressed about their life. While it is true that many Doomers believe that society will collapse, that is not exclusive to the term. It seems to me that whoever wrote this article does not understand the term and sorta hijacked it to specifically refer to climate catastrophe which is hardly what the term is usually used in reference to. The term actually predates the use in a climate context by a year. (Votesmall (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to climate apocalypse? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This was already discussed here here. I think there is a strong line between the 4chan meme (Wojak) and the philosophy regarding global problems, which is what this article is about. You have cited the Atlantic but it fails to establish a relation between the two topics. Even looking at the recent version of this article, there are clearly two separate parts that are not related to each other, as the first is about some memes which originated from 4chan (Zoomer, Bloomers etc) and the other covers climate concerns. Hakken (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Unfortunately, no clear link has been made in reliable sources. Even if the two versions of Doomer appear in the same article, the author is in all cases sure not to make a direct link between them. Jlevi (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

text: it should be noted, the Wojak doomer subculture was represented by the r/Doomers subreddit, which has since been banned, and the moderators for r/doomer have made it clear that the two subjects are separate. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is we need to use reliable sources to support our content instead of relying on original research or unreliable sources such as Reddit, otherwise that would be against Wikipedia's policies. I would dare to say that if there is an instance of connection by a somewhat known source, it would be a case of circular reporting, given how this meme became popular around the time this page started to wrongly merge both topics some months ago. Hakken (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you, however, due to the lack of information online from reliable sources, this page will not be sourced effectively enough until good reporting is done on the subject. Most WP:RS don't cover internet subculture, at least not yet. I propose we leave the current, flimsy research and replace it later when better sources become available. Otherwise, there will be massive gaps in information, which is unfortunate for an encylcopedia. I will add the Template:Primary sources to the sections with primary research so that it can be updated at a later point, and to point out the flimsy nature of the information at hand. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote is misleading. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Need of a Secondary Source or Source(s) in #Common_themes 

message: 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)
replies: text: One more Russian-language source with a pretty detailed coverage: TJournal. Finstergeist (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomer music 

message: 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://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/meet-the-doomers-some-young-us-voters-have-given-up-hope-on-climate 
https://mouthingoffmagazine.com/the-doomer-the-most-important-meme-of-a-generation/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/tang-ping-lying-flat-generation-rejecting-chinas-work-culture/100477716
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://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/breaking-up-over-climate-change-my-journey-into-doomer-facebook/11678736
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)
thread_title:  Doomer has nuance, and is widespread 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political affiliation of Doomers