Jump to content

Talk:2000s/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

global warming etc.

With the summary bit at the top I think it would be good to say something about the increased urgency and awareness of climate change issues-kyoto etcera. I don't know what its like in america but certainly in the UK the noughties has seen climate issues become a top political concern. I think it topped the issues the UK public thought was most important for G8 leaders to discuss were climate change and africa,(live8).

This page is mainly about America

How can we talk about fashion, music and sports on a page like this without mentioning specifically that this is only in the USA. I have never heard the words 'Crunk' or 'Wanksta', since when have baseball caps been worn backwards anywhere except for in America, and how are tattoos on the rise again? Perhaps these extremly specific sections should be put into a page called America in the 2000s? The news orientated things should mainly stay I think though.

  • "but some consider the decade to have not truly begun in the cultural sense until the 9/11 attacks of 2001 or alternately the dot-com burst of 2000-2001." Ok OBVIOUS America bias I know it was sad what happened but you can't say this was the start of culture in the 2000s , CLEANUP IMMEDIATELY. Ive put a globalise note on Medscin 16:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What to call it?

Allow me to explain this in a way that makes sense to me: The 2000's (Two-Thousands) - a decade - are in the 21st Century, just as the 1900's (Nineteen-Hundreds) - a decade - were in the 20th century. The names 20th Century and 1900's are in fact, not interchangable any more than the 1960's are. Would you refer to the entire 20th century with the name of a single decade? That's what you're doing when you call that century the 1900's - which happens to be the name of a decade. That brings us to today. Don't be a fool - think about it. The name of this decade is 2000's (Two-Thousands), and it is in the 21st Century. The name of this decade is officialy the Two-Thousands. Let's all get together on this before the decade is over. I know it's hard to cope with, but the first ten years of every century dont have a cool name that starts with a 20 like in all the movies where they say years like 2030 (Twenty-Thirty). I don't know when that'll start, maybe 2010, or 2020, but one thing's for sure, not yet.

P.S. ZDecade, what's the deal man? Don't edit over what I say, respond to what I say. You have your own website to make your case, don't you? Let me make my case, and let my words remain my words. Just because you can do it, doesn't give you the right to. Have some respect for what others say, because other than our genetics and our names, that's all we have. Thank you.

  • I have a perfect solution to your problem, I am recording every major event, trend, and fad in this decade and hopefully I will release my book, I am naming, the "Zip Years", cleaver aint it:)
  • If we are going to be consistent, we ought to pronounce 2000's "Twenty-Hundreds" rather than "Two-Thousands", just as 1900's is pronounced "Nineteen-Hundreds" instead of "One-Thousand-Nine-Hundreds".
  • I would like to say that since everyone called the years of this decade e.g. "Two Thousand and Five" then I believe we should call the decade the 2000s. I believe we should drop using the final two numbers of the first year of that decade e.g. 90's should be called 1990s. etc. Makes more sence since the numbers 00 don't mean anything (00 as in 00s).

Draig goch20 18:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Good point, however, the 1400s refer to the entire century. As does the 1500s etc. So, again we have a problem, don't we?

TGoodman 13:13:, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps naming is the least of the worries that you should be concerned with? -- kanzure 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bryan, I consider this article to be so silly-an article purporting to cover all the significant historic, cultural, and economic trends of a decade only halfway finished-that perhaps the only thing I think makes sense to include is a discussion of the name. I mean, the fundamental question is, when VH-1 does its series on this decade, what will they call it? "I Love the Naughties", or "I Love the Double-Os" or what?
I'm kidding, of course, but seriously, the things that are being included in this article are just plain silly. People talking about this being a "bad" decade. Criticisms of the 2000s? What kind of nonsense is that? Everything in here (except, again, the naming stuff) can be and should be found elsewhere. Given a bit of historical perspective, one can perhaps-sometimes, not always-characterize a decade. The 60s were the decade of Vietnam and the Sexual Revolution, the 30s were the decade of the Depression. But it takes some perspective. In 1992, some characterized the 1980s as a decade of "excess", but then, six or seven years later, it became clear that-after a brief blip for the G.H.W.Bush recession of 1990-1992-that the 90s exceeded the wildest excesses of the 80s. Anyone who thinks he or she can characterize the Naughts (my personal favorite, not Naughties) on January 1, 2006, is just silly or ignorant or under the age of 25. This article is, quite frankly, a mild embarrassment to an ostensible encyclopedia. But I don't really think it's hurting anything-y'all go on and have your fun. Unschool 01:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's unclear to others. Seems like the reasonable course of action: The article should be listing the possibilities for this decade, not writing a historical essay about current trends, which resembles a child's attempt at a time capsule more than anything else. -- kanzure 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
So you wanna be bold and delete all the kiddie time capsule stuff?Unschool 06:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
No. I do not have anything to replace it with. Somebody who knows about the major current events in detail, or at least able to link to articles about the major events albeit current or historical and leading up to the present events, would be more suited for the position. -- kanzure 02:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I recommend the 2000s become more like the articles for the 1970s. Props to whoever came up with that structure for the article. -- kanzure 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've asked quite a few people about this and everyone I has used the term "noughties" for this decade. It has been suggested in the article that this may bemore of a british than american thing, (im in the uk), I'm sure this is the term I've seen used in style magazines etc (eg. what does the noughties woman wear...) 131.111.8.99

I saw a little thing on CNN around the turn of the millennium, and they suggested the term "the 0h's", that I have used ever since when speaking English. -- looskuh 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Turn of the millineum/century/decade

The actual "turn" is not in refference to the "last few years of a period". That would be stupid. It's actually in refference to the moment of change, being 12:00pm Dec. 31. No one talks about an event occuring in 1996 as being during the turn of the century, but you'd hear them say that it occured "around (or before) the turn of the century", unless it continued past 2000. Same thing with something that happened in 2003 (ie. around/after turn....--J. Daily 23:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

World Leaders

It seems a touch America-centric to have Condoleeza Rice as a world leader - she's neither a President, Monarch nor Prime Minister (or equivalent). Equally, I'd question the constitutional monarchs' places, as they have very little real power. As technical head of state, though, they have more legitimacy here than Rice. Cruci 17:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree about Rice. The monarchs are significant, even if they aren't truly world leaders, and that is the best place to put them. DDerby 10:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, no one could argue that Condoleezza Rice isn't more influential than 3/4 of the leaders on that list. Either way, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and the U.S. can have a bit more weight than other countries. TheArmadillo 01:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Just because this is in English doesn't mean the US gets more weight. Verditer 02:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The first post-Internet decade

By what definition? The Internet has not passed, so this cannot mean "the first decade after the demise of the Internet"; but, since the Internet was born in the 1960s, neither does this decade qualify as "the first decade since the inception of the Internet". If it means "the first decade after a lot of noise was made about the Internet, even though it was quite mature before then", I question the validity of this title. -- Bignose

The International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010)

I initially thought somebody was having a joke with this, but I checked and it's a genuine UN declaration. I hereby wish to start the campaign to have the 2011-2020 decade named the "International Decade for Having International Organisations Tackle Real Issues Instead of Generating Stupid Platitudes" --Robert Merkel

From article:

  • terrorist attack against Afghanistan, directly killing at least 5000
  • "silent" genocide (see ICC definition (c)) by cutting off food supplies of about 50% of 7.5 million Aghans

216, please review NPOV policy, rewrite, and put back in. Thanks. --Ed Poor

Just being the antagonist to a superpower does not make Iraq a super power itself...

If we were basing things on facts rather than a biased POV we would have it, "George W. Bush, U.S. dictator." I am not convinced that we should have it Sadaam Hussein, Iraqi dictator, but not "George W. Bush," dictator of the USA. (Although I personally believe Hussein is a dictator, is this exactly NPOV? Should be have his official title instead?) --141.219.41.163 20:22 Feb 4, 2003 (UTC)

Give me a break. Bush is not a dictator and it is stupid and idiotic to say otherwise. He was elected per the guidelines set out in a constitution, will leave when his term is up and does not in any way has absolute power in the United States. Hardly a dictator. --mav

Nonsense, 141. Even those of us who dislike the man don't think of him as a dictator. -- Zoe

Dear Mav and Zoe--You guys need to do some homework. Do yourselves a favor and CAREFULLY READ the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and then the Patriot Act. Make note of how the first two documents just don't jive with the last one. LISTEN to "Democracy Now" (or read the website, democracynow.org) every day for ONLY one full week. CHECK OUT the very reputable moveon.org site for a week. In other words, give yourselves one week of something besides the mainstream media and you just might get a clue. ps mav--Actually, George did NOT really win the election. Check out the Associated Press findings from their voter recount of the entire state of Florida.--TK

Saddam isnt either a dictator, he was just as elected as Bush was. If your gonna call bush president, which is fine, then call Saddam president aswell. Foant 10:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sports figures

I removed Landon Donovan from the list of sporting figures, as he is not considered to be one of the decade's greatest, most influential or most famous soccer players by any objective criterion. Methinks he is a hangover from the "all sports figures are American" days of the list. --Lancevortex 09:54, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Are the following well known outside the USA and Canada: 

   * Barry Bonds (U.S. baseball player)
   * Martin Brodeur (Canadian ice hockey player)
   * Vince Carter (U.S. basketball player)
   * LeBron James (U.S. basketball player)
   * Derek Jeter (U.S. baseball player)
   * Ray Lewis (U.S. American football player)
   * Donovan McNabb (U.S. American football player)
   * Randy Moss (U.S. American football player)
   * Alex Rodriguez (U.S. baseball player)
   * Martin St. Louis (Canadian ice hockey player)
   * Michael Vick (U.S. American football player)

? If they are not, should they remain in this list? -- Jeandré, 2004-08-20t20:03z

Actually Landon Donovan was the only US soccer played i know.... (as well as Mia Hamm)..

the sportmen in that list are not well know outside the US, they should probably be deleted... - --Cyprus2k1 06:44, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that they may not be well-known outside the US/Canada doesn't mean that they should be deleted. However, I think that these lists should only include sportspeople who are considered the greatest in their field during the decade in question. From the list above, this certainly includes Barry Bonds, who is indeed one of the greatest baseball players of all time, and probably Derek Jeter, who has been a mainstay of one of the most successful baseball teams of all time. The others I am not familiar enough with to judge -- that probably needs to be left to a North American Wikipedian!
With regard to Landon Donovan, I don't think it matters whether anyone's heard of him -- he is not one of the best footballers (worldwide) of the 2000s, and so shouldn't be on this page. --Lancevortex 09:00, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
i assume Mia Hamm should be in the list? (one of the best in female soccer)
ok, so, include Barry Bonds and Derek Jeter.. what about the rest? (asking opinion of those who know about ice hockey,etc..) - --Cyprus2k1 10:41, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Famous outside the US? Well, I know who Barry Bonds is, and I've vaguely heard some of the names in passing. US sports just don't appear on the radar in the UK anymore. I'd say just list the truly great, and if people would question about whether they really are great (or seriously worldwide famous), then perhaps shouldn't be on the list. Average Earthman 14:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I read an article on BBC News that Vick has had three injury-shortened seasons in the NFL, and is short on winning - now I admittedly know very little about US sports, but that certainly doesn't look like a notable record as yet. I'd say if he wants to be a notable Quarterback, he'll have to at least play in the Superbowl. Average Earthman 11:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I just remembered - US sports like handing out titles such as 'League MVP'. If anyone of these players listed doesn't have at least one such title, where one is given, then I'd say that suggests they haven't made the required very high grade yet. 10:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, although I don't think it would be fair, for example, to insist that a football (socccer) player should only be on this list if they have won a World footballer of the year award, and other sports probably don't have awards of a similar nature. Also, many great players will never win an award for best player in any one year, but are great because of consistent high standards of performance over several years. As well as that, pure sporting achievement is probably not the only criterion by which we should judge whether a player is worthy of appearing on a decade list. David Beckham, for example, is probably not even in the World's top 10 footballers, but his fame exceeds that of any other player and therefore belongs here. Basically I think it's tough to come up with objective criteria! My opinion though, is that whatever the criteria are, they should be strict, so we don't have a list like the music one where people just add their favourite artist regardless of whether they'll be forgotten in five years time. My guess is that you are in agreement with that, Average Earthman! --Lancevortex 08:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe Martin Brodeur (Canadian ice hockey player) and Vince Carter (U.S. basketball player) are famous in the UK and Europe as well. The Rest of the World isn't asked, right ? What about Indias greatest Sportsman ? Is he on the list ?

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but Brodeur and Carter are not famous in the UK at all. The average UK citizen would not be able to name a single famous ice hockey player or current basketball star; the sports have no profile here to speak of. But that's not the point. Are they among the greatest players of their generation? If yes, then they deserve a place here. I think that many people would consider Sachin Tendulkar to be one of India's greatest sportsmen, and he is on the list, so the list is not as western-centric as you seem to think. --Lancevortex 9 July 2005 10:02 (UTC)

Landon Donovan

I live in England, home of football. If someone like Donovan is going to be in a list of this kind then we are going to have an incredibly long list of footballers and that means other sports will want their incredibly long lists also. There must be a few hundred in Europe and South America who are better players than Donovan and have achieved more than he has too.

The list is already ridiculously long because of people sticking their current favourite in there regardless of whether that person will have any long-term credibility. Someone like Lance Armstrong must be in because he is so far the outstanding sports performer of the 21st Century. Tiger Woods deserves to be in also. The vast majority of the rest should be removed until they have done something to really deserve inclusion; and I mean really deserve.

As far as football is concerned, I'm not sure if anyone should be included yet for this decade. I would wait until after the next World Cup or until the current "stars" have retired.

Changing the subject slightly, why do some Americans assume that their sports are recognised worldwide, when they are not. Basketball is the classic example. Outside of America, this game is seen as some kind of circus freakshow. I have already seen an argument elsewhere on Wikipedia by an American who claimed baseball has more supporters than cricket, basing his ridiculous notion on the number of English people who support cricket. He seemed to be incapable of understanding that cricket is played worldwide and that, in India alone, there are more cricket fans than there are people in America!

Coming back to football, by which I mean a sport played with a ball by using your feet, you get the sort of American who thinks Donovan is some sort of "superstar" because of the ludicrous hype that the American media projects. These people should realise that the likes of Donovan could not get a game in a top European competition like the English Premiership or the Italian Serie A because they are not good enough. If Americans are interested in football and wish to see how it is really played at the highest level, the English Premiership 2005/2006 starts this very afternoon. Watch Liverpool FC, the European Champions, and see some real football played by real players like Steven Gerrard. If Gerrard played in a so-called major American league, he'd think he was doing some pre-season training. --BlackJack 12:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Baselball is very popular in some countries in Latin America such as Venezuela and the Dominican Repuplic. Tennis Dynamite 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the NBA has a very strong European presence (doesn't necessarily mean in the UK), and baseball has a stronghold in Central and South America. I say, leave in the American sports figures, and add figures from other parts of the world. Because I don't live in Europe, I can't write anything about the UEFA Championship League. Someone who lives in Europe can (and should to make the sports section more legitimate). Paulsen 15:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Decade name

The list item about the "Twenty Hundreds", followed by a ramble about how this is wonderfully simple and consistent that didn't flow with the rest of the text and also made no sense, was stuck in by an anon long ago. I checked Google, and it seems that people really have used "Twenty Hundreds" to mean the decade and not the century (this baffles me), and it's used much more than "the Nillies", so I guess it should stay in the list. RSpeer 13:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

One name I've seen and like but the simple but of explanatory text the "decade 2000". I've seen it a few times now, and it's just self explanatory. People know instantly that you are refering to a decade and which decade. It's not really a "name" per se, but in most usage it works. Now when I see the text "the '00s", I usually say it aloud as the "decade [of] 2000" just because it's clear. --Sketchee 10:00, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

My idea of just calling the decade "The Two Thousands" might be easier, and makes more sense.

Draig goch20 20:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why "2Ks" has not caught on. 2000=2K; 2001=2K1; 2002=2K2 and so on. Easy to remember and simple.

Music

OK, I'm a thirtysomething and living in Europe, so I'll accept there will have been plenty of influential, highly popular acts I simply haven't heard of, but I do get a little suspicious about the importance of some of the entries if both links are red - are all of these artists and albums really important, or have some fans been overinflating the importance of their personal favourites? Average Earthman 14:49, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would definitely agree with you, AE. After all, it's not as if there aren't plenty of other Wikipedia articles where people can list bands. Perhaps in 2015, with the benefit of hindsight, we can drastically prune this list! --Lancevortex 09:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was finally brave enough to delete the lot of them. The links to the specific list of bands/albums are still there for those who want the info. --Lancevortex 19:54, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

World leaders

Leader in Nazi Germany meant the combind post of President of Germany and Chancellor of Germany. For clarity it would be much better if this list was broken into two "Heads of Government" and "Heads of State". Besides "World leaders" are often neither head of government of state, in their 15 minutes of fame.

Millennium

In the millennium article, it says "the first decade of the 2000s" with 2000s being a link here. Any comments on this?? 66.245.126.251 16:43, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Years in the future

Most of the 2000s (decade) lies in the future. So I think this article belongs to that above-named category. Brianjd 06:57, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

I disagree. The category should only go on articles on years or groups of years that are entirely in the future; the 2000s may contain future years, but they are not themselves entirely future years. The 2000s, 21st century and 3rd millennium are not the future, they are the present, and parts of their contents are the past, so adding this category to any of the three is misleading. -Sean Curtin 02:39, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Decade as a whole

Ugh. This isn't just editorialising, it's bad editorialising. However, the assertion that cellphones are a "social problem" amuses me. Morwen - Talk 12:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Beslan school hostage crisis: biased wording?

The entry for the Beslan school hostage crisis is somewhat biased in the attribution of its death count. The entry states that the terrorists "subsequently kill 334 people", although the death count may have been partially caused or increased by the ill-fated attempt by Russian authorities to storm the school with a show of force. Since this is arguable, a more neutral statement, similar to that used on the event's page, would be: "Beslan school hostage crisis, in which multinational terrorists take a school in Beslan, Russia hostage. 344 people including children die in the ensuing crisis." This rewording gets the same information across without insinuating that they were summarily executed by the hostage-takers. Any thoughts? --Pathoschild 13:24, 27 September 2005 (EST)

Sounds sensible to me. --Lancevortex 10:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Video Games

Resident Evil 4 (Gamecube, Ported to PS2) gets great reviews (Nintendo Power: 10/10, IGN 9.8/10)

A lot of games got great review, why is this one singled out?

Xbox Power adapters catch fire, Microsoft replaces them for no charge.

Does this need to be here? When people look back at the decade will a minor recall matter? I mean, it's already largely forgotten.

Sony releases the PSP (suffers from nuemerous dead pixles and mediocre launch titles, now mainly used for homebrew) to compete with the DS.

The PSP is mainly used for homebrew? The launch titles were mediocre?

-- Pyro19 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I took out those top two because they were so insignificant to the decade as a whole. I also redid many of the points to fit the broader picture. The whole first half of this decade was a big change in the video game culture as gamers became adults and gaming became more "mature" and less "kiddie" so I thought that I would include that.

--JayMatsby 14 January 2006

I added much needed info on the Game Boy Advance.

-- JayMatsby 18 January 2006


I have objections to this: 

  "Sony announced that the PlayStation 3 will also add tilt-sensitive capabilities to their controller, the first standard motion sensing for home consoles."

For one, this is not the first standard motion sensing for a home console. That would be Nintendo and the Wii controller which motion sensing capabilities was revealed eight months prior. Second, the tilt-function is more of an extra rather than an integeral part of the controller like the Wii. I'm going to revise this, with something like "Nintendo's Wii features full motion sensing capabilities, Sony follows suit with similar tilt-sensing technology marking the first sign of a standard in motion sensing in home consoles." Anyone object to that?

You have any proof of that? Sony might have had this idea before Nintendo stole it.

JayMatsby 21:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but there hasn't been any evidence to substantiate that claim. In fact most evidence points to this feature being hastily added to the controller a few weeks prior to E306 as most game developers who are working on games for PS3 had not even heard of the added functionality before then. Nintendo was the first to publicly announce a standard tilt-sensing controller. Radjago 13:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I added a little ditty on the DS lite and clarified some other points.

JayMatsby 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


This line irks me. 

    "Console gaming officially hits the Internet with Xbox Live."

Online console gaming has been around since a modem was released for the Atari 2600. The Dreamcast's online service was popular, but unsucessful in the end. Xbox Live was the first successful online console service and may have helped its acceptance in gaming's mainstream. Radjago 13:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 


    "During 2005 and 2006 the seventh generation of home consoles arrive: Microsoft's Xbox 360 (2005), the Sony Playstation 3, and the Nintendo Wii (both expected 2006) have sharper HDTV-ready graphics, multi-media, wireless controllers, and more integrated online features."

While the Wii's graphics may be be capable of being displayed on an HDTV, it will not support HDTV resolutions (720p, 1080i) and instead maxes out at 480p.Radjago 13:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


While online console gaming has been possible since the Atari, it never really became mainstream or significant until Xbox live was released. That was the reasoning behind saying that online console gaming is now "official". Feel free to argue differently. About the Wii and HD, you're right, I'll change it. JayMatsby 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What is this crap about Gen X?

Deleted "...but some politians are scared of what Generation X might offer the world in the future, mostly due to GenX's whatever type of philosophy. Generation X will continue to have political power till about 2050, asuming the cut-off date for birth is 1985. The transition of power should begin sometime in the late-2000s, in the years of 2007, 2008, 2009, and onto the 2010s when most early born Generation X's reaches their mid-30s" This is purely speculation, and seems overly opinionated without actual value.

DVRs

Quote:

DVRs (Digital Video Recorders), typified by TiVo, allow consumers to modify content they watch on TV, and to record TV programs and watch them later, leading to problems as consumers can fast-forward through commercials, making them useless.

It seems to me that if this is the case, VCRs did the same thing a long time ago. The fact is, most people still like to watch programs live, and if they do so, they have to watch the adverts.

Hot-spirited debate about evolution versus creationism and Intelligent Design?

How has this gone unnoticed? It's rather important to write about the lack of understanding of science in the now given that all the progress seen in popular entertainment and technology is backed by thousands of engineers being worked half to death (possibly?) for these cultural patterns to continue. -- kanzure 23:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Intelligent Design is a US manifestation of lack of understanding of science. Not many proponents of it in the EU. In the UK at least, it's more a belief in media scare stories over medical treatments or GM food. Average Earthman 17:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlapping between Internet, video games, and technology. To fix this I propose that the there be two main groups, one addressing events and advancement, and the other culture and trends. There needs to be a clearer distinction between these two. Example, "HDTVs are developed" and "TV shows are now aired in High Def" and "Sitcoms are no longer popular", all related to television but they should be separated into different topics. Just want everyone to be aware that there will need to be a big reorganizing, either sooner or after this decade. 

--JayMatsby 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

War peace and politics

The paragraph on the world and internal US view of the Bush presidency was deleted by an anon IP. Not too surprising, since it was particularly partisan. I've tried a non-POV rewrite, but I'm not completely non partisan myself (I'm fiscally slightly conservative and socially liberal, so definitely not a supporter of Bush policies), so needs more eyes on it. I don't think a lowering of overall world opinion of the US compared to the position in January 2000 is too deniable (we don't have to say whether it is fair or not, just that it has happened), and the suggestion from some Democrat politicians of impeachment proceedings of Bush is on the record. I've written 'polarisation' of internal opinion on Bush policies rather than outright hostility, as clearly some do support them, while others are extremely hostile towards them. Average Earthman 11:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Which One???

in the sports section it says that football becomes popular. Which football?Tennis Dynamite 17:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet usage surpasses TV viewing in 2004.

Internet usage surpasses TV viewing in 2004? This needs to be cited?

Napster's popularity

*Napster becomes more popular as the price and song capacity of Ipods dramatically increase. As of January 1, 2006, Napster for the first time in at least 3 years had out beat the Ipod in popularity.

  • I removed this from the page after reading it. Can anyone site a source on this one?

Hit movies of the 2000's not mentioned

Why isn't the trend of Super hero movies mentioned?Why isn't the Spiderman franchise mentioned.Also Pirates of the carrbean is not mentioned chronicles of narnia is sooon to becoem a classic um broke back moutain ???? Pixar becomes super dominent and and shrek and computer animation tkes over.There alota movies from our decade that is not being mentioned .


-Spiderman Franchise -Finding nemo -shrek -Brokeback moutain, -The incredibles -Monters inc -Chronicles of Narnia -madagascar

Criticisms of the 2000s

As User:Unschool writes above, "Criticisms of the 2000s? What kind of nonsense is that?" I couldn't agree more. A decade is a period of time; it's not the sort of thing that can be "criticized". Anyway, the current section with this name is merely a thinly veiled (and weasel-word-laden) attempt to denigrate the George W. Bush administration. dbtfztalk 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, it should be deleted. --Lancevortex 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Trends/Fashions

I edited some of the stuff in the trend section. I found a few things I thought were inaccurate. I also added some -- like trucker hats and Ugg boots (both very popular trends). I think mentioning them is very relevant.

Books & Literature

I added expansion tag. It is simply a list of books, we need to know why they were notable, such as sales and influence. Or is it better to just leave a list? Skinnyweed 20:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC) I've noticed that often times on this site extreme generalizations are giving without citing who thinks what. Ex."[long hair]is no longer considered just a "skater" or hick" fashion." Simply saying that people in the United States think that is ridiculous. Most people perhaps, or people of upper or middle class gentrification.

"Miscellaneous Names"

I did not delete "Tommies" because I hadn't heard of it. I deleted it because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of personal sentiment. Personally, if I could name the decade, having given it a lot of thought, I would pick the "Aughts"; I have heard many refer to the years like 1906 as "Nineteen Aught Six", and I find that charming. My sentiment, however, is irrelevant. The fact that one local radio station that I listen to calls it the Aughts is nearly as irrelevant. We are supposed to be trying to write an encyclopedia, and include that which has the feel of a professional work. As it was, I included a sentence with other's ideas but mitigated it with a statment of these being individual wishes.

Importantly, the problem with your inclusion is indicated through your use of weasel words. Please review this section before re-including your "Tommies". Incidentally, I made a point documenting only those statements that I felt might be questioned, but if you wish, I will source it all. And while Tommies might have a small following by some in the UK, just as "Aughts" and "Double O's" do in the States, that's not the point. If we listed everything that had a following, this would be a list dozens of names in length. And as such, it would serve little purpose. Unschool 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I just Googled "Tommies", along with "decade" and "2000s". If this had any of the popularity that you assert, I would expect to have found something in the first four or five pages-but nothing. If you sincerely believe that this "Tommies" thing is used by anyone outside of your shire, please document it. Otherwise, I believe it's already being given (in it's current incarnation that I've just edited) too much space already, and should be reduced to one in the list, without the "prestige" of the explanatory comment that I've kept in place. If everyone puts in their own pet name and why it should be included, it turns this into an ugly section. Unschool 05:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this "Awties" is pretty dumb, not the least because it is based upon someone's ignorant misunderstanding of a term. Anyway, if it belongs here, it's just as a mention, and the "Awties" article should be deleted. Better yet, let's just excise the whole section here on Names for the Decade, and make it its own article. Unschool 03:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Superbowl XL becomes the second most watched television event in history.

I'm really skeptical of this, after having read the following:

According to Nielsen Ratings, the telecast of Super Bowl XL drew an estimated average 90.7 million viewers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XL

Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen" was the final episode of M*A*S*H. The episode aired on February 28, 1983 and was 2½ hours long. It was viewed by nearly 125 million Americans (77% of viewership that night) which established it as the most watched episode in USA's television history, a record which still stands today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye%2C_Farewell%2C_and_Amen_%28M%2AA%2AS%2AH_episode%29

But both of these are completely outdone by: In China, the national team’s direct involvement promoted record television ratings, with more than half the urban population aged 4+ watching at least some part of the China v Brazil game. (TNSSPORT/CSM-Sofres China) This match had an audited audience of 108 million on CCTV2 and CCTV5. However, it was also broadcast live on regional channels, which significantly adds to the audience of the national carrier. In Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the combined ratings were in the region of 33. If replicated across the country, the total audience for this match would be around 330 million people. (Source: FIFA Marketing / Sponsorship Intelligence) http://2002.fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/02/en/020624/2/17xw.html

Maybe "Superbowl XL becomes the second most watched television event in history." should be changed to "Superbowl XL becomes the second most watched television event in the history of the USA"

This does link in with the first discussion topic "This page is mainly about America" I think Superbowl XL being based in a single country and not affecting the world in any significant way makes it not important enough to be in this article. The Football (Soccer being the technical term [Being short of "Football Association Rules"] to distinguish this sport from American, Rugby, Aussie rules etc.) World Cup is vastly a more major event than the Superbowl - involving a significantly larger portion of the world - yet it is hardly mentioned in this article.

  • STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Why is this discussion even here? Why is this part of the 2000s? When historians look at the 2000s, will they even mention the existence of Super Bowls, let alone a particular one, let alone the TV ratings of one? Anyone who thinks that this information belongs here has got to be younger than 14. C'mon people, does every single fricking piece of data from the decade belong in this article? Wikipedia: 2000s-the Idiot's Playground. Unschool 19:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian football figures

Why are there so many Aussie rules players listed? Compare to golf, an international sport (albeit one I personally hate) where there are four people listed. Serious trimming needed I think. I'll leave it for now to see if an Aussie will trim, but frankly I wouldn't complain if someone deleted the lot of them, since it's not a global sport by any stretch of the imaginiation (and yes, I know American Football isn't either, but it gets 90 million people watching its final). Average Earthman 09:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be around a quarter of its current size. Nothing against AFL (I'm Australian), but I think everyother sport has been sensible with their lists if you know what I mean, whereas AFL's is just too big. The Soccer list is smaller than it...Just go easy hey. Cvene64 15:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


  • STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! Why are any Aussie players named? With a name like 2000s, this should be a "big picture" article, not a detailed listing of everyone who may have touched a pitch during the decade. My god, people, can we leave stuff where it belongs. Are there no articles on Aussie footbal (or whatever this is) where this stuff could be listed? Do any of you have any idea how completely stupid you look haggling over this kind of stuff? I mean, if you are serious, then you should just reorganize the encyclopedia into only one type of article: Decades. Why have an article about the World Cup, terrorism, elections, or even whales? I mean, why bother with all those 1.3 million articles when all you need is a series of articles: 1420s, 1880s, 2000s, and the like. What more do you need? This article is an embarrassment to both Wikipedia and anyone over the age of 12 who actually thought they were making a valuable contribution to the "encyclopedia" when they included a listing of popular reality game show personalities of the decade (I don't know that that is actually in here-I've not read it all. But it wouldn't surprise me.) Unschool 19:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay why the hell are we sweeping these tragic events under the rug?

the hurrican in florirda, the tsunami in indonesia, the flooding of new orleans, etc. ?

They're all mentioned in there. I think...
Either way, if you don't feel they're given proper credit, you can go ahead and write more info on them yourself. That's what Wikipedia is for. Be bold. bob rulz 01:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Emo

"Emo goes from being a small subculture in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, becoming mainstream beginning around 1998 but especially later in the decade." The "mainstream" emo of today is very different than the emo of the 1980s. Flyerhell 20:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

haha wtf is a emo lol weiiirdddo

Out of hand

After looking over this article again, this article is infused with POV and biasedness. For example, language like "people you never thought would take home Oscars in the 90s..." is found throughout the article. Weasel words and suggestive language are all over the place in this article. I consider fairly lenient with weasel words compared to a lot of people on Wikipedia, but the level of them here is unnaceptable. This article really needs some cleanup. I'll start on the road toward eliminating some POV, but it's not something I can do without other people helping me. bob rulz 03:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The noughties

Is this term widely used in Britain? Voortle 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

These [1][2][3]came up just on the first page I googled; there are literally hundreds more. Pretty much everyone in the UK recognizes the term, and more are using this term than any other-nothing else is even close. 68.218.212.225 07:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've never heard it before. Everybody should just call it the "zeroes" and avoid any confusion in the future...bob rulz 04:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Highly regarded decades?

I'm sorry, but this entire section on "perceptions of the decade" is pure drivel. First of all, it's completely unsourced. "People feel this. . ." and "Others argue that . . ." The whole section is full of weasel words, and I'm going to delete it just for that.

But lest someone think that this section can be saved by a few sources, let me say how positively inane this section is. On a purely grammatical level, a sentence like "It may be argued that the 2000s are so far not a highly regarded decade by most people in the world as many find the 1990s" raises suspicion that this person may be in their second semester of English as a foreign language. It's just poorly written. But even that would be forgivable-contributions from non-English speakers should be welcomed, and English speakers can clean them up. Except that the underlying problem is not the English skills. The problem is in having someone believe that one decade can be "highly regarded". What kind of nonsense is that? An individual may look back at a decade with fondness (Bill said, "I loved the 60s, dude, it's when I got into rock and roll and the chicks were all easy."), but the worldview of any decade is so splintered, so heterogeneous, that's it's positively stupid to call a decade "highly regarded".

The section then goes into specifics which belong (barely) in the other subsections within the article. It's just total garbage. It's the worst section in the worst article in Wikipedia. Unschool 03:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That section was utterly ridiculous, and the only reason I didn't delete it then is because I didn't feel like it...heh. I figured somebody would come around and delete it sooner or later. But honestly, this is a ridiculously, unacceptably POV article, and its full of opinions, independent observations, unsourced statements, and purely innacurate statements. This article needs serious cleaning up (look at my section above called "out of hand" that talks about this same stuff that nobody responded to). bob rulz 13:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, this article is an idiot's playground. Unschool 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The section has returned. I'm going to delete it again. bob rulz 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Late 2000's?

Reading the music section I am confused by references to fashion in the late 2000s:

1940s fashion such as evening gowns and wavy hair becomes more popular in the late 2000s.

As far as I am aware we are yet to reach the late 2000s - I would place 2008-09 as the late 2000's and possibly 2007 - so how can the fashions of the period be known?

Also, why is this information in the music section as, while they may be closely linked, fashion and music are two completely different things? Alihaig 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I once went through and changed all of the mentions of the "late 2000s" to the "mid-2000s" but they mysteriously changed back. Also, I don't know why it's in the music section. That's a good question... bob rulz 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"People" Section

This section is far too long. It would be long enough at a third of its current length. Dozens of semi-famous musicians, already-forgotten sports stars and other overrated celebrities are on the list. This list is nothing short of useless at its current length--who could possibly determine what people were the most important in this decade? I also think the sports subsections should be consolidated into fewer sections, rather than a separate place for each individual sport. With fewer players this would be possible. Tom Stringham 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

2000s the worst decase?

The 2000s should be labled "The worst decade in the history of mankind, because they gave us the terrorism. 213.240.234.212 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism was around long before the 2000's - the IRA have been active for most of the last century and the middle east isnt a recent crisis.Alihaig 12:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On that note "Thus far, the 2000s has generally been marked with ... the rise of terrorism" is rather POV and unsupported. The War On Terror, and claims of an increase in terrorism are notable (which are covered later), but I don't think we can say "the rise of terrorism". And whilst I'm on that sentence, what's "Stress" doing there? Mdwh 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not the worst decade in mankind, it certainly didn't invent terrorism, for modern history probably the 1930s would be the worst, in the past there was the Spanish Inquisition and all sorts of bad things. I do believe however that the 2000s should be remembered as the "Terrible 2000s" just like the "Dirty Thirties" because of the enormous amounts of international tension, wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Chechnya, Darfur genocide), bad economic times (Enron, Worldcom scandals), disasters (i.e. Tsunami, hurricane Katrina) and the reversal in attempts to bring peace to troubled regions, and little attempt to protect the environment, despite increasing global warming.
Wikipedia is not a forum. bob rulz 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrible 2000s?

With allegations of vote fraud inthe 2000 U.S. Presidential Election September 11, Enron scandal, the major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2004 Tsunami, the destruction of New Orleans in 2005, the crisis in the Middle East, especially during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the genocide in Darfur and so on and so on...could it be said that "Terrible 2000s" will become the nickname of this decade just as Dirty Thirties was named for the 1930s due to the enormous problems with economics and wars which overshadowed the postive. It may be premature to determine this now, but if the situation remains unchanged in the next four years, is it possible that "Terrible 2000s" will be an accurate description for a decade which so far has been ravelled in problems, controversy and war?

It's possible...but read above: Wikipedia is not a forum. bob rulz 02:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Music edits

JoJo is not a disney channel artist, whoever put that doesn't know anything about music. Justin Timberlake, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears have all had great chart success in the 2000s, saying they're just popular in the tabloids is a bunch of crap especially since you got Timberlake with 2 songs in the top 5 right now, and Christina with another successful album and another rising hit (Hurt) and a top 10 song already this year (Ain't No Other Man). I swear some people that edit this don't know a thing about the charts or music in general. Research things before you load up a section with incorrect opinions.

Yeh n hip-hop artists sell more then rock n others n will make a strong climb back in 2007/08 woooooooo

Formal vs. Informal Decades

Briand06, I believe I understand your thinking in deleting the reference to the informal decade of the 2000s. I don't know how old you are (the older the better, if you are to understand me), but I ask you to look at other decades over the past 100 years and ask yourself if you have any general impressions of them. For example,

  • Aren't the 1960s seen as the period of free love, drugs, and anti-war sentiment?
  • Do people not see the 1930s as the coresponding to the Great Depression?
  • The 1920s (I may be pushing you a bit with this, unless you're much older than I suspect) are seen as a time of frivolity and irresponsibility, are they not?

Yet the "60s", to the extent that they fit that image, really ran from November 1963 (JFK's assassination) to May of 1970 (Kent State). The "30s", as typified in the TV show, The Waltons, actually ran from October of 1929 (the Crash) to December of 1941 (Pearl Harbor). And the 1920s began with the departure of Wilson in January of 1921 to the Crash in October of 1929.

People very understandably do not think of decades as perfect bundles of 10 years, because to do so serves no purpose. Historical trends don't always correspond to decades, but perfect decades never correspond perfectly to historical trends.

Frankly, I think that this is a terrible article. It is just an endless list of facts that really belong in specific articles; this has become an accumulation of mush. If I was the Dictator of Wiki, I'd not even allow an article devoted to a decade until many years after the end of that decade, and then I'd want that article to be about general historical trends during that time, rather than this pointless list. Frankly, I think that the only two parts of this article worth keeping are the intro, which with great brevity must list the most significant trends of the time period, and the part on the names for the decade, simply because this particular decade presents some unique problems in that area. For everything else (like who won which Super Bowl, or which TV shows were popular), I'd go to subject specific articles (Super Bowl and TV programming).

I truly appreciate your attempt to clean up what probably came across as simply opinion or speculation. But believe you me, it used to be a lot worse than this. Unschool 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 06:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

this article is absolute shit, like the culture it describes (2000s in yankland)

the 2000s are definatly better here in australia (i was born in bitain) than in america, but 1960s culture (the best decade was the 1960s) seems alot more provalent in 2006 than in 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.11.28 (talk • contribs).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s/Archive_1&oldid=1190101151"