Talk:2000s/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: This page is mainly about America

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turn of the millineum/century/decade 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Music 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Millennium 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decade as a whole 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beslan school hostage crisis: biased wording? 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Video Games

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hot-spirited debate about [[evolution]] versus [[creationism]] and [[Intelligent Design]]? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Trends and Technology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  War peace and politics 

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

message: Internet usage surpasses TV viewing in 2004? This needs to be cited?
* How do you define this?  -- looskuh 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet usage surpasses TV viewing in 2004. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Totally agree, it should be deleted. --Lancevortex 16:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the 2000s 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Books & Literature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Miscellaneous Names" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superbowl XL becomes the second most watched television event in history. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title:  Australian football figures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Okay why the hell are we sweeping these tragic events under the rug? 

message: "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)
thread_title: Emo

message: 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)
thread_title: Out of hand

message: Is this term widely used in Britain? Voortle 02:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The noughties

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  As I said above, this article is an idiot's playground. Unschool 06:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has returned. I'm going to delete it again. bob rulz 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly regarded decades? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Late 2000's? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "People" Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terrible 2000s? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formal vs. Informal Decades 

message: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube links