Jump to content

Talk:2000s/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

The people section again

Any suggestions for people missing in this section should be made here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who's missing, because I have no idea what criteria are being used to determine inclusion. At the moment, it looks a bit like pick-your-favourite-person-who-did-something-or-other-between-2000-and-2009. If this section serves any purpose at all (and I'm not entirely sure that it does), it ought to be subject to some basic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
no one can say what who gose here i am thinking this secton is not needed. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
If the section does remain, it probably ought to say something that can be verified, like [1] or [2]. But if WP editors are just compiling their own lists out of thin air, that's pure WP:OR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Your links look good - maybe a disclaimer should be added, it will obviously get out of hand unless editors remain circumspect here...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A few possibilities of newsmakers to add to the people section - Sarah Palin, Daniel Pearl, Osama bin Laden, Aung San Suu Kyi, John McCain, Kofi Annan, Mullah Mohammed Omar, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, Damien Hirst, Bernard Madoff...Modernist (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you are on the right track, although I would put also include Al Gore, Pervez Musharaff, Abu Bakar Bashir, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan etc. I am not sure why ASSK has been nominated - effectively nothing new happened in Burma this decade.
Could I also suggest another track? Rather than devise criteria and nominate personages, which could be interpreted as original research as well as invite unnecessary debate, why don't we simply quote those persons nominated in Time Magazine's most influential people for various years? That way we are referring to a separate panel to make such judgements, and they by and large are reasonably sound calls. Kransky (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above, having a separate source hopefully will facilitate circumspection...Modernist (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Also agree. However I think 100, as listed in Time Magazine, is too far many for a subsection especially as we are talking about a separate list for each year. This is a list that belongs, if anywhere, in Time Magazine World's Most Influential Person, not here. Determining who should be added, as suggested by Modernist, is never going to work. It is original research and inevitably a matter of opinion. (Personally, I needed reminded who Bernard Madoff was.) --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the point of this section at all unless some solid, factual basis can be defined for inclusion. And if such a factual basis existed, it would probably merit its own article instead of cluttering this one. As Cosmic Latte says, right now any passing editor is free to add their favourite person without any need for a cite or justification. And if we're just saying it's just people famous for doing something in the decade, well I think this article is going to run on for ever. Besides all that, I fail to see what value it is bringing to the article. What exactly is the reader suppose to get from this list? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

i am understanding what User:Escape Orbit is saying. i want to see what other editrs say to him. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Escape Orbit as well. I'm open to the possibility of mentioning a nice and neat little list or two from a reliable source. I'm not entirely sure why this would be desirable (people's names are relatively short to begin with, and those of particular significance should not be difficult to incorporate into the prose), but perhaps a decent rationale will come along. What I feel really strongly about, though, is that the current list--that bloated, colossal...thing--has got to go. It's inelegant, uninformative, unrestrained, and just a downright mess that runs directly counter to the encyclopedic goal of condensing the decade into a coherent, concise, and comfortably digestible batch of knowledge. As it stands, methinks the article could use some editorial Ex-Lax--i.e., complete removal of that section until and unless something that doesn't violate WP:OR, WP:SS, and WP:NOTDIR can be put in place of it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No one has can forward with a practical suggestion for making sense of this (and the other related) sections. In the meantime they continue to grow unchecked. Do we have consensus for removal? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
i am okay for me with this idea. 65.80.251.172 (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice that TheCuriousGnome reverted some wholesale changes to the bands section by Ckgoreproductions. The changes were, of course, total POV, but every bit as valid as what is there now. This is illustrative of the problem with these sections. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete

I think i can comftarbley say that this article is complete, so i think adding stuff to it should now end. --Deanmullen09 (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

olympics?

i am thinking we dont need to put olympics in here because they hapen ever decade at leste two times. nothing special except maybe 1996 was 100 years old. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Sydney Olympics were considered the best ever, and the Beijing Olympics showcased China's rise (and to some degree its failings). Don't forget the winter olypmics and the paralympic offshoots. Kransky (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

some kinds of criteria for people secton

in secton above about people secton we are talking about makeing CRITERIA for who we can be puting in aritcle. everyone needs to be helping for us in decideing what to be including. This ones here are my criteria i am suggesting:

  • persons must be famous to complete world
  • persons must be in stories in ALL newpapers and magazins in complete world [not just in one story in one famous magazin]
  • persons must to be doing famous things in decade 2000s

these are my ideas [i am geting them from User:Kransky mostly] and i want to know what other editrs are thinking about them and i want other editrs ideas too 74.234.47.199 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Montage

Nice set of pictures (please check their copyright status). I would just question the inclusion of Obama - if anything noteworthy is going to take place in his Presidency, it would be in the 2010s, not 2000s. Perhaps a picture of some Euros, or an Indian girl with a mobile phone (be creative guys) might be a worthwhile replacement? Kransky (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree also - good job...Modernist (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take out Obama, and include Hurricane Katrina. Don't worry, all the pictures are free (they're all from Wikipedia). Euro's might be good (what could the caption be)? And I'll include George Bush instead of Barack Obama. --SamB135 TalkContribs 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell consensus is very much in favor of the montage...Modernist (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. --SamB135 TalkContribs 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Per this section and the one immediately below it, there is a competing consensus as to whether any collage should be included and whether it is POV or not. It is almost impossible to create a collage to represent an entire decade of time around the world that is neutral. We need more than just two people and the creator of the collage agreeing before we have a new consensus. — CIS (talk | stalk) 21:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there should definitely be a montage. I'll keep that one off now, but it would help if everyone put in their ideas. Obviously we can't create a montage that is going to fit the likes of everyone, and many of the events are going to revolve around the United States because a lot of things happened in the 2000s decade, that are significant and involved the US. --SamB135 TalkContribs 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I created a new one, obviously there's going to be controversy, take it down if you wish. --SamB135 TalkContribs 22:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd get rid of the Bush/Cheney picture. Obviously they were notable figures during the decade. However, such a picture is not illustrative of very much (except, I guess, for Bush's tendency to make interesting faces, along with Cheney's tendency to make none); it doesn't provide a whole lot of insight (in-sight, hmm...) that the text doesn't already convey. The other pictures seem fine, as either their overall aesthetics or their visual content is not something that one sees everyday and not something that one can thoroughly grasp through words alone. So I'd say, take out Bush/Cheney and fill it with something from Europe, Africa, South America, or Australia/Oceania, none of which are currently depicted in the montage. In fact, since the montage nicely holds seven pictures, I'll raise the possibility of including one picture from each of the seven continents--even Antarctica, where global warming has had some very visible effects. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I preferred Obama over Bush and Cheney - try Katrina, Euros and somewhere else in the world besides the USA and Europe...Modernist (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
A photo from the Mumbai terror attack might be good to include, showing that terrorism is not only a "Western" problem. Artx (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with removing the US president, no need to replace with Obama. Replace that slot with either the Mumbai attack, Space Shuttle Columbia breaking up, the Madrid train bombings, or the intro of the Euro. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It should be noted that Europe is not represented on this montage. --Kuzwa (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
added the Mumbai terror attack and Social Media images. If you like leave it, otherwise replace it... Artx (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
removed the Mumbai terror attack (getty images) and Lisbon treaty (NPOV). Added EURO and ISS... Artx (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture should have an image of Barack Obama, not George W. Bush - opinions?

Surely a picture of Barack Obama would be more fitting? One of the most popular U.S. presidents in decades, the first African-American president, he is in the news daily, even more so than past presidents. Perhaps a picture of the election night when he came out onto the stage in Chicago's Grant Park or him taking the oath on inauguration day? I just think it would be better to have a picture of Obama. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer Obama over Bush as well (most of the pictures in there are a bit depressing, really, and regardless of our own political orientations I think we all can agree that Bush isn't exactly known for having a stellar international reputation), but I'd prefer something from another continent over either one of them. Both Obama and Bush are depicted later in the article, anyway. Even speaking as an American, I find the article much too U.S.-centric. For instance, even though I (along with many many other people in many many other places) was deeply troubled by Hurricane Katrina, I wouldn't exactly try to convince someone from southern Luzon that this sort of thing is unusual. Of course Katrina should be mentioned in the article, but showcased at the beginning instead of something of equal significance from an underrepresented continent? I'm not so sure about that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I concur - the Mumbai attack, the Burma Cyclone, the Euro, Katrina, might suffice...Modernist (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
See above. The original picture montage I created had Obama in it. While we might not agree with Bush did (regardless of his international reputation) Many people see Bush as the figure of the 2000s decade, Obama would be more fitting to the 2010s decade. There are many events we could fit into a montage, unfortunately we don't have a lot of space, so I did the best I could. --SamB135 TalkContribs 04:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

Whether you put Bush, Obama or Osama in the montage - your choices would always controversial and raise a debate. Maybe as an alternative solution we can pick only pictures of events and refrain from including any world leader/political figure in our decade montages? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We're going to have to do this eventually, at least when it gets less politicized. The 80s should have Reagan, shouldn't it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. I could do one with social networking instead of Obama or Bush. --SamB135 TalkContribs 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this as well. I think we should keep images of particular leaders out of the main picture, but keep them in the rest of the article where necessary. A picture for something regarding social networking like Facebook and/or YouTube would be much better in my opinion. Even better would a picture of the iPod or something similar, because while the decade didn't progress in many areas, one area that did progress was technology and I think the iPod was a major part of that. It was launched in 2001 at the start of the decade and continues to be successful. 72.39.210.23 (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this image Social Media - it's a web 2.0/social media montage (facebook, myspace, youtube, etc.) Artx (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
At last--a picture of the neon god! Not bad, though, and certainly quite colourful, but I would imagine that it'd be an intellectual rights nightmare to justify adding so many registered trademarks to this article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
How about the ISS ISS Front View - This image embodies the things we can achieve when nations work together. Artx (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If I were to be cynical, I would suggest that the word "rich" is missing from between "when" and "nations". But, as I could never be a cynic (as one can clearly see from my preceding post...:-)), I'll propose that this image is a fine example of an aesthetically accessible product of international cooperation, and that it would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion in the montage. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Gnome's solution.
I am opposed to Obama's inclusion, as he is yet to have done anything significant in the 2000s, except being elected. Bush and his gang, for better or worse, had a far more significant influence on American, and global politics. But I still don't think he is worth a photo. I would include Osama over anybody else, except that a picture of the WTC or soldiers in Afghanistan would be better than just another headshot. For this reason I am not fond of portraits when a picture of a famous event is available.
On a personal note, I find it disturbing that some people seem to confuse fame with virtue (like how TIme recoiled away from making Osama Time's Man of the Year for 2001). There were bad events in the "decade from hell", and they should be given due weight. But there were some successes as well worth including. Kransky (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The 40's.. now that was a 'decade from hell'. Do 5 out of 7 photos have to look like they were taken in war zones? So many clouds of dust (and a fake one – the tsunami water).. Is there a better WTC picture showing just the top of one tower on fire? Could they at least be in chronological order? Isn't Hezbollah too similar to some of the other ones and Israel was in several comparable wars in this decade anyway Shouldn't it be better to put the euro symbol (if the 2002 was really when people started getting paid in them), Katrina and the Millennium celebrations than Hezbollah? Israel was involved in other comparable wars this decade and it seems similar to other things. Maybe add symbol(s) of one or two of the recessions (NOT a house with a foreclosed sign, I live in the same country as the Americentrists themselves and 2,000 sq ft houses that you buy yourself doesn't mean anything to me).

Now if one wanted to truly be cynical one would do 12 perfect squares of exactly this:

Times Square 2000 | Crash | Bush | 9/11 | Tsunami | Katrina | another recession | Obama | Times Square 2010

iPod (put on the middle bottom flanked by blank squares for it to be more of an embodiment of the technology of an era than a specific release date)


That covers about everything doesn't it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Two natural disasters in the montage

I believe that one is enough, and that the Tsunami was by far a more wide reaching and global event of the decade than Katrina, which really was just an American disaster. New Orleans picture should be replaced with something to do with the internet/social networking in my opinion. :) Anyone else's thoughts? --156.34.66.156 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll replace Katrina with the Facebook picture I was provided. --SamB135 TalkContribs 05:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree - there were worse disasters than Katrina, although the fact it highlighted US domestic vulnerabilities does give it some prominence over other calamities with death tolls of higher order of magnitude.
As for Facebook, I think we should cover IT under just one photograph. It could be a good example to represent the interactive nature of the internet that has continued penetrating around the globe and this is perhaps the most prominent theme for the decade - moreso than iPods (digitised 1980s Walkmen, if you ask me).
By the way I am writing this in a cybercafe in Mangladore, India. It is easier to find broadband than hot water on tap. Kransky (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What picture or proxy could be used to represent this (that would be commomly recognized as such of course?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Poster telling Irish voters to vote no on the Treaty of Lisbon

I believe it should be changed with an image of a more notable event. maybe the Mars Exploration Rover? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We need something to demonstrate Europe; I figured something along the lines of the European Union would do. And viola, the Treaty of Lisbon came. But hey, at least we're down to requesting a change for only one of the pictures :P --SamB135 TalkContribs 08:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
File:1euro 2007.jpg
right.
The Mars Exploration Rover should defiantly be included in the montage. I assume that you decided it isn't good because it came from the United States, right? It would be much better to add images of the most notable prominent events of the decade (which would be recognizable by all our readers) rather than trying show a variety with images of events that aren't notable on a world wide scale. In this case, an image of a Euro coin would be much better than that poster. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No lol, I didn't add it because if I did there wouldn't have been anything for Europe. I'll add a picture of a Euro Coin or paper note (so I can fill up the big space which the poster takes) --SamB135 TalkContribs 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Please look at the section above for some suggestions. Mumbai terror attack, ISS Front View, Social Media, etc. Two are "international" in nature, the other a "Non Western" image... Artx (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be away for a week or so, so whatever pictures you guys decided on, you'll have to put it in. --SamB135 TalkContribs 23:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I am opposed to any reference to space exploration. Simply put, there has been nothing of merit in this field worth including, when you consider other events in other fields. I could agree to Sputnik, moonshot and the Space Shuttle in earlier decade articles, but I do not think anything dramatic or significant has transpired since.
The Treaty of Lisbon introduces a range of reforms, but I would only consider it as one step in many towards European integration. Adoption of the Euro was a more significant advance, practically and symbolically, towards integration. And coins look better in pictures than legal texts.
As for the Mumbai attacks, speaking from India, I can say it is a flash in the pan given India's discretely violent past. Since Partition (half a million dead), India has seen riots involving and targetting Sikhs, Muslims and other groups. Indeed in this decade far more Indians died in the 2002 Gujarat violence. It would be a bit cheesy, and self-indulgent, to represent anything coming from India to be related to what was essentially an anti-Western attack. Kransky (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said here. Don't know much about India, though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Kransky is thinking more clear than are evryone else. we must put in UNIQUE things only. how is he explaineing it when he is useing space exploraton for example is how we must be thinking for EVRY SUBJECT in this aritcle. how long are we makeing this if we are puting in these things that are hapening also in other decade? 65.80.251.172 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, the landing on Mars was the first time we sent vehicles to another planet in history? That is a relatively large event. What I am super annoyed with are people saying that decades only involve political, militaristic acts when really science, arts, lifestyle, society etc... all advance at the same time. It's important we document all changes. I do think that the ipod photo could also be argued as science representation as it represents the technological advancement during the decade. As for the current status of the image, I am fine with the poster being taken out and replaced with the Euro, provided there is a good caption for why it was relavent to the decade in the image. Finally, I am vehemently opposed to seing the Mumbai Attacks or Hurricane Katrina in the article. Though both were big news stories, the relavence of both in the grand scheme of what this decade will be remembered most for is dubious. I would actually rather bring back the George W. Bush photo before adding Katrina as the hurricane is most important for how it destroyed his credibility. (End POV) :) --Kuzwa (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Kuzwa you must are being very young to be thinking this way. sciensce IS very important sure. but we are landing on mars more than 30 YEARS AGO. and we also landed on venus before too. this is why this is not so big to go in here. but i am agreing with you about mumbai atack and maybe about katrina but new orleans flooded is prety big. if new orleans was now gone for ever then i would put in katrina but you are maybe right we dont need it. 65.80.251.172 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
True, we don't want to include calamities or (as one other correspondent notes), photo after photo of explosions. I would get rid of the Lisbon Treaty photo - is it really more significant than the Euro, or the expansion of the EU into European Union? As for the iPod, I still maintain it is not a significant technology - just a walkman in which information is stored digitally rather than analogue. For the sake of (underreported) science, why not something on the Genome project? Kransky (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
but genome project was 1990's i am thinking.65.80.251.172 (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Which mission landed on Mars 30 years ago? --156.34.65.235 (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Viking 1 landed July 20, 1976. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"I'm opposed to any reference to space exploration." That's irrational. Major events of the decade were related to space: the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, only the second shuttle disaster in history; the construction of the ISS; the finding of water on the Moon; the first privately funded spaceflight. Multiple reliable sources, including the AP and Newsweek, consider them major events of the decade. --Jatkins (talk - contribs) 20:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I much would've rather put Facebook or a social networking site instead of ipod to demonstrate the rapid rise of the intenet, instant communication and social networking around the world. As to the Treaty of Lisbon, I really don't care what you put in it's place as long as we aren't tilting the image to make it too focused on the deacde as seen by one particular region. Perhaps also the environmental activism of this decade could be shown some how like with a Kyoto Protocol picture or something or a picture of an Inconvenient Truth. Who knows just a thought. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of this image is flawed in the very idea. The treaty came into effect and this poster represents a group of people who opposed it. I agree that the coin or a variant is a better choice here. --Tone 11:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture summary - should be reworked?

"The 2000's was a decade where celebrity, fame and notoriety was accorded a big public focus, and was given excessive media attention and importance. Many people felt entitled to their 15 minutes of fame, and the rise of Reality TV, helped many people to become public figures for just being personalities rather than actually doing anything noteworthy."

I like the idea of a statement about pop culture increasingly including amateurs/non-celebrities because of the effects of reality TV and viral/internet publicity. It's hard to summarize an entire decade in a topic with as many facets as popular culture but that's the best general trend I can think of.

But I think the phrasing really needs to be changed. It sounds too much like a few value judgments/personal opinions were thrown in. So in the interests of bringing solutions instead of just pointing to problems, I'll take a crack at it:

"In the 2000's the rise of reality television and viral internet media led to increased representation of "average" people and their creations in popular culture. However, traditional entertainment productions failed to be fully conquered by these movements and instead remained in a co-existence by the end of the decade." Qwerty0 (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We should find a source describing this phenomena and describe it, but remember - just because it is popular doesn't mean it hasn't been done before (and since forgotten). Kransky (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, then I agree with that. The best move would be finding a good source. My first inclination was to remove the summary, but then I thought it might be ok to simply improve the wording and then look for a good source. I still don't have enough experience to know where the line is about when to source. ..you know, I think I'll go ahead with the revision and then work on a reference. Qwerty0 (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Err, nevermind then, it's already been removed. And now that there's nothing there, I actually don't feel like I can put in my revised summary. I was a better reworking of what was there before, but honestly, I'm not sure it's really the right perspective for the whole decade. I'd welcome any thoughts, though. Qwerty0 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
i want to be saying in here about how noone any one are feleing shame any more. there are some people who now are famous and poplar because they are makeing sex tapings but if this was in 1980's hapening these persons would be feleing shame and would go away but now this is makeing them poplar. it is so diffrent! i am thinking this is important to say in the aritcle because it is hapening so many timess. 65.80.251.172 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
i have put this part in. i worked and changed it many times to make it good so all people can read it okay. i am thinking this is a biger change than many others in this secton. it is not just a one thing it is a big change. if someone is haveing a sex tape 20 years ago just people are hearing about it they are no more able to be in movies or tv. but now they are geting there own shows and movies. 65.80.251.172 (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Could I please obtain views from other editors about whether we should mention the death of Michael Jackson? I simply fail to believe that his death had "worldwide repercussions", or that it is relevant in the context of this article, which is to describe the most important events and themes of this decade. He belongs in the 1980s, not here.

Also, could I suggest that we remove the list of musicians and other celebrities? If left in, I suspect every fan of every obscure musician will be continually adding to this list to the point we would not know who is more important than whom.

In its place, may I suggest that we replace the list with details from Rolling Stones, Time Magazine, Billboard etc of who they consider were the leading artists of the decade, representing a broad and balanced range of genres?

Kransky (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Michael Jackson, my reflex is often to assume US-centrism, but look at the map for searches for "Michael Jackson" here. The US isn't even in the top 10 countries.
As for presentism, that's a more salient allegation but still, this was the biggest popular culture news story of the year. And maybe the biggest for the past few years even. I think it should be represented in this decade as much or more than Princess Diana should for pop culture events of the 90's.
Oh, and I like the idea of replacing a haphazard list with info from publications about the important trends. I still think individual artists/bands should be mentioned, but culled from overviews in those sources. Qwerty0 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The list has gotten ridiculous and needs to go, or at least to be replaced with something verifiable and relatively coherent. As for Michael Jackson, I'm actually not sure if I can think of a better embodiment of the "themes of this decade." The day of his death saw the highest levels of internet traffic ever, even disabling some prominent websites (e.g., Google). His funeral was the second-most prominent in terms of viewership ever, and the most prominent of the decade. He was recognized and mourned all around the globe. This is what I mean by "worldwide repercussions": Knowledge about, and reactions to, a single occurrence (e.g., the death of a single person) spread so far, so fast, that the world is dumbfounded and (as in the case of Google) quite literally overwhelmed. This is, I would think, what one might call a "theme" of the 2000s. Moreover, everybody from Rush Limbaugh to Hugo Chavez had something to say--not necessarily about the death per se, but about the media's treatment of the death. Indeed, from a social-observer standpoint, this all might seem to be less about the death of one 1980s musical icon than about the ways in which millions of mourners gained and transmitted information in the 2000s. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I follow what you're getting at. Just the word "repercussions" suggests that other notable events followed as a result. Yes, some websites got hit hard for a while (Wikipedia for one) but that's not really notable in the context of the entire decade. Yes, everyone had something to say about it. Yes, it was big news. But "repercussions"? Only repercussions I can think of is a lot of iTunes downloads. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
True; "repercussions" might have been too strong a word. Maybe "consequences" or "effects" would have been a better choice. Indeed, the internet traffic surge was only one part (if a big one) of the picture, and shouldn't be overemphasized; but it seems to be a contributor to one of the few (non-war) events of the decade that really had a "global" scope and impact. The media-fueled immediacy of it all makes it look especially "2000s-ish" (for lack of a better term). Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I am struggling to think what were the effects of his death. Were their any riots? Was his death an inspiration? No - Michael Jackson is famous for what he did when living, and the talents he gave to the world should be noted - but only in the relevant article. 118.94.64.84 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
THAT is a good arguing to take out michael jackson death. i may be can be agreeing with this. 65.80.246.38 (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
It is good reasoning. Perhaps the main effect of his death was, simply, that a lot of people reacted in the way that a lot of people would be expected to react to his death. But, even so, can anyone think of a more prominent event in 2000s music? Certainly it's something that the 2000s will be remembered for, just as the 1980s is known (musically speaking) for beginning with the death of John Lennon. As with Lennon's premature demise, Jackson's early death meant the loss of future music; in Jackson's case, an enormous concert series was just about to start. I don't know how highly I'd rank the importance of Jackson's death among all events of the 2000s. But surely it was one of the biggest, if not the very biggest, events in the music of the decade--and, after all, his death is noted only in the music section of the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

People section compromise

The best solution might be to only present the people of the decade lists which were published in the biggest magazines (for example a Rolling Stone magazine’s top artists of the decade, Time magazine's most influential people of the decade, etc.) TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that only sourced lists should be included. But I'd think that these lists would need to be relatively short--no greater than 10, perhaps. And I'd advise against including even truncated sections of long lists (unless the source summarizes their own list in something like a "top-10" introduction), because our redrawing of the list's borders could be seen as a subtle form of original research. So, the Time list may be out. But the current list, which looks like a hodgepodge of almost everything (and, therefore, of almost nothing very meaningful), most definitely does not belong. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above: narrowing to 10 each - eliminate most - add newsmaker section...Modernist (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Pin it down to 10 and make it clear that unsourced additions are not welcomed. Unlike Cosmic Latte, I've no problem, with truncating longer sourced lists. Just as long as it's a consisted, across the board, top 10. No exceptions to get someone mentioned at #12. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
In addition, the same rule should apply to all other people lists which currently are included in the decades articles. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - each article, like each decade is unique and pre-determining and imposing arbitrary systems and arbitrary rules undermine the free spirit of the project. Take it on one section at a time, one article at a time, one decade at a time...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
How are these lists in this article different than the people lists in the other decade articles? Please elaborate. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As evidenced by the constant changes and rearrangements to this article each decade is different and unique. Things that become important during one epoch don't carry the same weight in another. In the 1940s for example a completely different historical, anthropological and cultural set of events that defined and characterized that time do not necessarily matter to the way events are described in this decade. The importance of the information and thrust of the information needs to be flexible and needs to vary in order to encompass and reflect each separate age; along with the people that defined that age. While in this decade where the virtue of hindsight is lacking the information we include tends to be far more seminal than genuinely historically weighted, whereas other time periods have differing determining historical factors...Modernist (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the choice I would opt for no limits imposed here, it is a free project and editors should respect that. However given the nature of these lists to this decade and the plain fact that additions can be virtually endless, I signed on to an arbitrary limit here for now. All in all I think it is a bad idea and I vehemently oppose those arbitrary limits being applied anywhere else...Modernist (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The limits suggested here are simply a way of rectifying the ridiculous mess this section has become and is only getting worse. If there was a practical way of not insisting on some limitations on the list that didn't result in a massive, uncited add-your-favourite-person list, I'd be all for it. But I can't see one.
It would be great if there was some standard applied across all the decade articles, but let's not get carried away. One solution at a time. What's required here may not be required in 1940s. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
i know it will still be hapening no mater what i say but i am thinking we do not need this secton. if we are includeing the EVENTS that are hapening when we are writeing about them events we will say the people who did them. but we dont need a list of those people seperate. 65.80.251.172 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The counterargument to consistency is to say that we are developing a better system, and the other decade articles should adopt it, not vice versa.
If anybody wants to get out a rulebook, remember that Wikipedia MoS isn't down with indiscriminate lists, or original research. 118.94.64.84 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If we have some agreement on this I intend to make a start on it by the end of the week. Any suggestions for cited lists we can use? Here's what I have sourced for a starter;

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, WP:BOLD let's see what you have in mind, if there are disagreements well, what else is new...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mumbai in the image

I honestly don't think this was a particularly important event in the grand scheme in the 2000s. Sure it was widely covered, almost sensationally perhaps but was it a defining moment of the decade? I don't think so. Considering there were numerous and I do mean numerous attacks in India this decade some with greater death tolls than Mumbai I don't think this particular even merits inclusion. The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto would probably be a much better choice, as it directly affected that entire region of the planet, and had just as much coverage worldwide if not more. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Space exploration section

Does anyone else beside Kransky thik this section should be removed ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

here is what i am thinking: [i am useing the list by jatkins up there]
  • the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, only the second shuttle disaster in history
i dont think this one is needing to be here BECAUSE it is second time shutle has been kiled while in the air. and spacemans died three times before.[3] [4]
  • the construction of the ISS
also i am not includeing this one. idea was from 1980's president regan and people are starting visting there in 1990's.
  • the finding of water on the Moon
i am thinking this is a big news. sometime before i am seing some writer wondered if water is on moon but noone relly is thinking this is so. but now it is true and is changeing plans for future. but may be OK to not put in aritcle because no one yet is useing the water. i am not sure for this one.
  • the first privately funded spaceflight
yes yes this one is BIG change from decades before and should be in this aritcle.
this is what i think about jatkins list. 65.80.246.38 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Gnome has insisted that I discuss the matter of deleting the space exploration section (again!), something he is keen to cover.
For his benefit, I will cite my reasons again below, in simple English.
1. This article is about high level themes and events that took place in the decade
2. The article should embrace a wide variety of issues
3. As such, there should be due weight accorded to the inclusion of particular events, depending on how important the event was relative to other events that transpired in the decade
4. I do not believe that anything prominent in space exploration took place in this decade, certainly not on the level of Sputnik, Laika, Halley's Comet, Moonshot or the Space Shuttle. Maybe the demotion of Pluto or the discovery of water on the moon.
5. Why do I care about this? Because if I let somebody with a strong interest in a personal hobby rewrite the article to give undue prominence to an issue, it will send a strong signal to others that this article is open territory for anybody to include anything without consideration of its relative importance. We could end up with fewer paragraphs on the Afghanistan War than what we have for rap singers, or Miss Kitty or whatever is popular with certain persons.
6. This is my last view on the matter. Could anybody who disagrees with my points above please add your comments below. Otherwise I will assume there is agreement, and I will henceforce remove all but the most important points on space exploration. Kransky (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Events such as the advent of private space crafts and space tourism, the advancements in cosmology, probes landing on Titan and other bodies, and especially the discovery of water on the Moon and Mars are all hugely important. (All these events are far more important than is the "demotion" of Pluto, which is in fact only a result of the definition of "planet" being changed; it is not really related to "space exploration" at all.) This decade has indeed seen fewer events that generate a huge amount of public intereset than did some earlier decades, but this doesn't at all mean that the 2000s saw less advancement in the exploration of space than the previous decades did - I can, however, understand why most of the space exploration events of the 2000s seem minor compared to events of previous decades in the eyes of the general public. But as I said, this just doesn't fit the facts. --Aqwis (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

space section is out of controling!

it is to much! if you are includeing so much as is in the aritcle right now[5] then you can be puting in anything you are wanting in here. not just in space exploraton but evrywear. this is too much. i am not agreing with Kransky about all his thinking. but he is very right about how this one is too much now. maybe we need two or three things here but not 25 things like it haves now. evryone should be looking at this one:

  • 2006 – The Space Shuttle Discovery launches on STS-121, the second Return to Flight mission following the Columbia accident, July 4.

now for me i am not even thinking we need to be includeing the FIRST flight after columbia disaster but this one is the SECOND one. i am sorry and do not want to be mean but somone here does not understand we cant have everything only what is most important. this place should be for "breakthroughs" (my friend gave me that word, so i hope it is meaning what i want it to be meaning) not regular things. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Mr 70.153.230.93. But this is just one symptom of a major problem of this article. There is no coherence, no dialogue, no consistent thought. It is just a place where people can dump facts (sometimes of dubious importance). Kransky (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
you are makeing a very important point it is this: if aritcle has lists like now then is too easy for any one can put in NOT important things. but if you say must be writeing into paragaps then is more hard to be includeing things wich are not important. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Prominant political events

This section is missing a lot of important events. Oh, and do we really need to mention all of the new presidents/prime ministers in this section? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

no. i think we should not be listed ANY leaders. only they should be stated when they are part of events. for example hugo chavez is part of many isues in latin america and also with united states. so if this conflicts we are talking about in this aritcle then in that secton we can say the name 'hugo chavez'. am i being clear? 65.80.246.38 (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
No. I am against lists for the sake of them, as it does not add value, but only creates arguments as we decide who should go up and in what order. Where certain politicians have been prominent in this decade we can talk about their rule, but not about their entry or exit. The exception being if their entry or exit was especially noteworthy (overthrowing a government, or being assassinated) Kransky (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
i am agreeing 100% with Kransky here. only i would say if a leader is asasinated or overthrown in some countrys where this hapens many times even then this one is not important. some countrys have army overthrown the goverment one time or more evry decade so this is not important for this aritcle. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The best-selling artists of the decade

The Rolling Stone’s source is misleading. The Beatles and Eminem didn’t get a tie – Eminem is defiantly the best-selling artist of the decade (see link).

It should be mentioned though that the best-selling album of the decade was the The Beatles' compilation album "1". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reworded it to preclude the implication of a tie. As the source indicates, it's significant that a band would even be in second place three decades following their breakup. In terms of editorial discretion, moreover, I would think that this particular source--with its dual emphasis--provides a nice balance of novelty and continuity. After all, nothing occurs inside an historical vacuum--e.g., as all of the earlier did-the-decade-start-in-2000-or-2001 stuff reiterates, there's a certain arbitrariness to the demarcation of the article's subject matter, and the Rolling Stone source accordingly lumps the new together with the enduring old. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Did some more clarification here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The Beatles are not the best-selling artist of the decade! They didn't even get a tie - Eminem is first and foremost the best-selling artist of the 2000s - look it up youself. We should refrain from confusing our readers. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm probably more confused than any reader will be. In the posts immediately above the post you just made, and in the corresponding edits to the article, I addressed (did I not?) precisely the point you made in both the preceding comment and the one that began this thread. If you think that even the new construction will confuse people, could you point out precisely where you think the problem lies? Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should either mention only Eminem as the best selling artist of the decade OR mention the top five best selling artists of the decade. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that emphasizes the top five, then go for it. The one I found focuses on the top two (which is, in fact, why I mentioned the top two in the article). Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
My holiday will be over shortly (typing this in my hotel lobby in Kathmandu). On return home I will do some work to this section and others - I am sure I can dish out something faithful to the intent of this article which you will be happy with. Kransky (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Internal conflicts section

This section should defiantly be minimized to the most notable conflicts. Which ones are they in your opinion? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say, really; so unless there's a source that addresses this exact question, it'd probably be best to go with some semi-arbitrary criteria. In recent year articles (e.g., 2009, 2010) we get a rough estimate of international notability by seeing how many non-English-language versions of WP contain an article about the subject. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is hard to say exactly. Therefore, I will attempt to prepare a list of my suggestions and hopefully together we would be able to decide which the most prominent ones were. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have resorted all the internal conflicts section according to the page view statistics of each linked article. Now that we can clearly see the less popular articles, which ones should we remove from the list ? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like overkill to me, needs culling...Modernist (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I am still working on trimming this section down to only the most prominent internal conflicts. to be continued... TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The timeline section

The article has grown quite a lot lately (it is currently 103,794 bytes!) and it has become much more comprehensive. Showing the most prominent events of the decade (which already appear in the other sections of the article) in a special timeline section is not necessary any longer in my opinion. It might be better to merge the timeline section into the other sections of the article. what do you think? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So far it isn't out of hand yet, like certain other sections that need a little culling (see above)...Modernist (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure, the other sections still need more work done on them but they are not unnecessary. In my opinion the timeline section has become unnecessary and therefore we should defiantly consider merging it into the other sections of the article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Definitely as opposed to defiantly? :)...Modernist (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops.. I meant to say definitely. Seriously though, is there no one else whom opposes or supports the timeline section being removed? Please share your opinions. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am back home and can start to give this article some serious thinking with fresh eyes.
Firstly, I am questioning the number of lists we have - assassinations, nuclear threats, internal conficts etc. Does this pretty much duplicate other articles (List of terrorist incidents, List of terrorist incidents, 2009, List of terrorist incidents in the United States, ..). Are we telling the readership anything new? Are we aligning this information towards what are core issues or features of the decade?
Compare the "politics and war" section, which is just a bundle of lists (terrorist attacks, wars, internal conflicts, nuclear threats, colonisation, declonisation and independence, political events) alongside minimal commentry, with the economics section, which outlines and explains the main themes of the decade concerning economics. Which of the two sections gives you a clearer, high level, picture of how the decade progressed?
Bias is still strongly featured in this article - why four lines are devoted to the Anthrax attacks, but nothing to (say) the Nigeria Miss World attacks? The seven "additional significant worldwide events" - Gonzales, Tito, theft of The Scream, Fossett, Somali hijackings, Danish cartoons and the US Airways birdstrike seem as if they could be reabsorbed into other parts of the article.
I would say that the timeline is the least problematic part of this article.Kransky (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
i am thinking we do not want a timeline at all like curiousgnome is saying. their are to many things to put on it. also it makes only a list and i think this is not suposed to be a list it is suposed to be a aritcle. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


How to write a better article

Suppose you were required to complete for homework an essay called "The 2000s"

  • You only have a limited amount of time, patience and word count, so you probably would only cover the most important points.
  • You would consider a few central themes, and try to structure your essay around them.
  • You would NOT dump dot points and dot points of facts together, as if to expect your teacher to try and work out what importance the facts had, either individually or collectively
  • You would try not to bore the reader, but would rather narrate a story.
  • Even if you are facinated with dinosaurs, you would probably not mention them that frequently, as dinosaurs were not around in large numbers during that decade.

Perhaps the same approach applies to this article.

Incidentally, editors may be interested in the book The Noughties 2000-2009: A Decade That Changed the World by Tim Footman. He was able to give a good precis of the decade, spinning disparate issues (music, politics, environmentalism) into coherent chapters. For example, Footman makes a rather interesting and ironic observation, and illustrates this through two chapters - whereas the decade highlighted the celebrity famous-for-just-being-famous (Paris Hilton and Jade Goody are explored in detail here), it was also the decade in which common people could develop the voice of media moguls through YouTube and Wikipedia. While I may question some of Footman's judgements, he at least has made a good attempt to encapsulate the decade, as illustrated by the chapter titles alone:

  • CHAPTER 1 - OUT OF A CLEAR BLUE SKY (9/11; the defining moment of the Noughties)
  • CHAPTER 2 - WAGING WAR ON AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT (Bush, Blair and `the War on Terror')
  • CHAPTER 3 - IS IT ME OR IS IT GETTING HOT IN HERE? (Global warming and the resurgence of environmentalism)
  • CHAPTER 4 - KEEPING IT REAL (Reality TV and the rise of celebrity culture)
  • CHAPTER 5 - KEEPING IT UNREAL (The emergence of Web 2.0, from Bebo to Wiki)
  • CHAPTER 6 - ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME? (CCTV, data-tracking and the rise of surveillance culture)
  • CHAPTER 7 - SHOPAHOLIC (Online shopping, supermarkets and the death of the high street)
  • CHAPTER 8 - AND THE BAND PLAYED ON (iTunes, iPod, YouTube, Glastonbury)
  • CHAPTER 9 - SPEAKING TRUTH TO HYPERPOWER (The decline of America and the emergence of a new world order)
  • CHAPTER 10 - THE BUBBLE BURSTS (The 2008 credit crunch; the end of the Noughties)
  • CONCLUSION - PREDICTING THE PRESENT

Now, can we get some consensus to move away from lists?

Kransky (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

YES! no more lists! 70.153.230.93 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, some sections need to be rewritten as summarized coherent chapters. Nevertheless, keep in mind that wikipedia works best through evolution and not through intelligent design, meaning that a series of corrections and minor improvements to an already accepted text would be my preferred solution in this case (and with other similar problems on Wikipedia). Major changes of full sections that had been accepted for months would need to be discussed first if they are done at all. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is all about, or how change is made - see WP:Bold. While more profound changes naturally require more thought and consultation than smaller change, this does not preclude making a fresh new start when it can be argued it would be an improvement on what is already there. I note the manual of style is quite clear about lists:

Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics (WP:NOTDIR)

We can argue this point, or you might want to nominate what were the most important themes of the decade and help us improve the article. Kransky (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Significant or no?

This is included in the timeline because of its effect on the Intifada: - September 30, 2000 - Muhammad al-Durrah incident occurring on the second day of the Second Intifada, sparked the outbreak of an escalation of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. In my opinion the incident is significant, other opinions welcome...Modernist (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Many innocent people have been killed on both sides during the second intifada. Whether the Israelis or the Palestinians shot the boy is a matter of dispute. Only mentioning his unfortunate death while not mentioning the many other brutal Palestinian terror attacks against the innocent Israeli civilian population and phrasing it the way you did makes it seem as if the violence wave which was generated during the uprising was based on this incident and was legitimate. This point of view is very biased and one sided. Besides Muhammad al-Durrah himself was killed on the second day of the Second Intifada! Therefore, as a compromise, I think it would make more sense to only mention the day the Second Intifada began in the timeline section. Otherwise I would need to start mentioning the prominent Israeli victims of the second intifada as well to make it more even. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough we will simply mention that it begins in late September...Modernist (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is this level of detail being considered for an article concerned with events that took place throughout the decade? You could summarise the Israel/Palestine conflict into: the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit, the Second Intifada, 2006 invasion of Lebanon, Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and the rise of Hamas. Kransky (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
We have reduced the levels of detail actually...Modernist (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New and improved montage

Moved Image to wikicommons with slight changes. Changes had to be made so that the image would consist of only non copyright images. If you have any suggestions for different images that should go in the montage please discuss here before making changes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why we needed two pics of the Iraq war Kransky (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is an image of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and an image of the War in Afghanistan. Do you have any better suggestions? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see now that it has been changed, and the pics look good. Kransky (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Auto section

Please explain in full why this section was deleted. I am returning it per WP:PRESERVE, because it seems to be well-referenced material.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It didn't seem well-referenced to me. However, even if it were, the choice of automotive innovations considered as important to the decade was the editor's, not taken from the references. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
So you thought it would be better to delete the whole section rather than find better references and attempt to NPOV it?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think an NPOV version is possible for me to generate; it requires recognizing expertise in the field, not just reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
Then wouldn't the best path be to slap a NPOV maintenance tag on the section? Maybe even a questionable references tag?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I think SYN on the section might be appropriate, rather than NPOV, if each paragraph has a difference reference, then the combination more resembles SYN. I suppose you're right. At first, the references looked bad, but I see that they're probably, individually, reliable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Climategate

I am hoping that this will not become a discussion about the controversy itself, but just whether or not it is notable to include one of the spark dates, November 20, 2009, in this decade article. That said, the controversy has had its highs and lows, and presently appears to have resurfaced again in a robust manner. The controversy is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia:

Therefore the controversy must be notable enough to have one of its spark dates mentioned in this decade article, musn't it?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "the controversy is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia"; I'm certainly not suggesting that all the various articles on the topic be deleted. In fact, I even agree that the controversy is important enough to mention in this very article. The thing is, it already is mentioned. 2000s (decade)#Climate change includes links to both climate change controversy and climate change denial. I just don't see how "Climategate" per se was particularly outstanding in the history of the decade or even in the history of 2009. Note that the 2009 article does not even mention this occasion. If you feel strongly that the day should be mentioned here, then I'd suggest first trying to establish at Talk:2009 that it's a salient day in that year, let alone in the decade. And, while I could be wrong, as someone who's familiar with the way talk page discussions for that article have gone in the past, I have a hunch that an attempt to introduce the event to that page ultimately would be unsuccessful--because, for instance, although the incident had an international scope, it doesn't seem to have had an international impact along the lines of, say, altering the climate change consensus or the scientific opinion on climate change (even if it has successfully demonstrated that, yes, scientists are human, too, and sometimes make mistakes). In a nutshell, yes, I fully agree with you that the controversy merits mentioning in this article. And, it already is mentioned in this article. I just don't see how that particular day really stands out, relative to other days, in the history of 2009 or of the decade as a whole. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Good argument, Cosmic Latte, however I, at least, consider the date notable and worthy of being listed in the 2009 section of this article. Hopefully other editors will enter their opinions on the matter.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Let me add, just because it is noteworthy for Wikipedia by no means justifies its inclusion here. This article is supposed to be about the most significant, important events of the decade. It should be much shorter than what it really is. Climategate barely took place in the last few months of the decade, and its impact is only beginning to show. I would not put a reference to Climategate here. Kransky (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above. It's far to early to declare this event to be so significant. In a year's time in may be regarded by all as being a passing fuss about nothing, or may indeed be a "spark date" as described. But making a call on that now seems very much to be speculation on its ultimate significance. Wikipedia does not record speculation. It needs to be evaluated on its current merits, and by my reckoning, these merits do not make it a significant global event of the decade, or anywhere near it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Image collage

I propose that the image of the invasion of Afghanistan be replaced with one related to global warming. The increased awareness of climate change was a defining element of the decade, and there's too many up there related to the war on terror. 9/11 and Iraq are fine. Zazaban (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

GW is one issue that is not unique to this decade (I would credit the 1970s as the decade environmentalism came to the fore). Anyway, Hurricane Katrina seems to represent GW well. Kransky (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong dates for this decade

All centuries and decades begin in a year ending in one and end in a year ending in zero. There was no Year Zero, meaning that the first day of the first decade of the first century, AD, was January 1, 1. The last day of the first decade was December 31, 10 and the last day of the first century was December 31, 100, not 12/31/99. Unless you're going to write off the first century as being only 99 years long, you have to begin and end decades and centuries on one and zero.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, but use your fingers and prove it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

User:Richardkeefe57

This has already been discussed to death. Short answer: read the discussion above, or read WP:RY. Longer version: yes, we know the math, it's irrelevant and not a valid argument. Decade names in Wikipedia are based on their nominal name and not based on the Gregorian calendar. In other words, "the first year of a decade on Wikipedia always ends with a "0", because decades are labelled nominally, in order to demarcate sets of similarly named years. (The names of years, themselves, are natural numbers that, relative to the transition between the calendar eras, reflect both an ordinal position and a cardinal length of time.)" --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lemony123

I've been puzzling over this for quite a while now, but the previous two contributors do seem correct, in that what is currently written at the top of the article - that the 21st century began in 2001, though the 2000s, as a decade, began in 2000 - is constitent with the Gregorian caledender and convention resepectively. As a mathematician, I must say I find this system extremely annoying and pedantic, but by it, what is written is and must be true! Of course, if you want to be really pedantic, you could note that, whilst it is convention to denote decades beginning with year xxx0, it is actually more consistent with the Gregorian calender to say a decade begins with year xxx1. Take that pop culture!

Oh, but this is all so silling and pedantic and I don't want to talk about it anymore! If this troubles you, as it has myself, perhaps drop a line on my talk page: perhaps we can conceive a new, far more correct calender system than the Gregorian or Julian ones. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemony123 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

All decades, centuries and millenniums start with a year number ending in 1 and end with a year number ending in 0. This is an inescapable fact of mathematics and has nothing to do with the calendar. When you count to ten (assuming you are human) you start at 1 and end at 10. You cannot start at 0 and end at 9.

ADT (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1990s are called the 1990s (or "the nineteen nineties") for the simple fact that all of the years from 1990 to 1999 have the word NINETY in them. It is basically just a nickname. The fact that there was no year 0 has nothing to do with this. The 199th decade AD was 1991-2000, but the 1990s are 1990-1999. Likewise, the 2000s are 2000-2009. Mr900 (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Richard would be correct if we referred to "the 200th decade" instead of "the 1990s", but we don't. -- DanBishop (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to elect that we make an article known as Gallery of the 2000s (decade) showing pics from the 2000s, and maybe other decades too.

--Deanmullen09 (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would be best to create something like that on wikicommons and link to it from here. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Best-selling artist inconsistency

In the text we have "The best-selling artist of the decade was the American rock band, Linkin Park". In a caption right beside it we have "The best-selling artist of the decade was Eminem". I haven't researched the correct answer, but I want to point it out, because discussion of this topic seems to have taken place only briefly in January 2010. Can anyone correct the problem? Robertbyrne (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Video games */

This section, especially the part about Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty, sounds a bit off. It has grammatical and spelling errors. I also see nothing to prove the info given about GTA and Call of Duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.124.180 (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict subsection

The following statement is a blatant and utter distortion of the truth, I'm changing this right away and I'm gonna cite Wikipedia's article on the same subject. "The intense urban warfare in densely populated Gaza and the intensified Hamas rocket attacks towards populated Israeli civilian targets lead to a high toll on both sides and among civilians" Modi mode (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's absolutely true. Your change is false. Both statements are presented without a credible source, but your change is false. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect sir, B'Tselem and The Jerusalem Post (through numbers published by the IDF) are both credible sources and they cite a Palestinian/Israeli civilian deaths ratio during the war of 254 Palestinians to 1 Israeli and 98.3 Palestinians to 1 Israeli, respectively. This is why the sentence "lead to a high toll on both sides and among civilians" didn't make sense to me and hence I edited it. 3 civilian deaths on the Israeli side is not a high toll, while 295-762 civilian deaths on the Palestinian side is a high toll indeed. Modi mode (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Since I haven't heard from you in a while, I'm going to apply the same minor change in the article, please let me know if you still think its inappropriate or false. Warmest regards. Modi mode (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fashion - missing text?

Re: "In the first part of the 2000s was the dominant sneaker brand for adults and sketchers were popular for children. " What was the dominant sneaker brand for adults?

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.56.94.11 (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: This is idiotic

This is a forum for discussing how the article can be improved, not discussion on the general subjects of the article.

70.91.122.97 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Naming the 00s

Some guy on ABC made made Unies as a name for the deacade. Here some link to see the video:

comment

No mention of Iphone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.14.2 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Split proposal for all decade articles

Moved to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Proposal: New List of events that took place in the .5Bdecade.5Ds category

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCuriousGnome (talk • contribs) 15:22, 17 February 2010‎ (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The picture of the war in Afghanistan though very important, is related to the 9-11 event, that has a picture in the infobox. A picture depicting the 2008 South Ossetia war that caused the first major rift and diplomatic showdown between Russia and the West since the Cold War should be included.--R-41 (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian armed forces in South Ossetia during the 2008 South Ossetian War.

Also the picture of social networking on the internet is a technological development that pales in importance to others. The development and significant sales of the hybrid vehicle is a major technological and commerce development of the 2000s. Here's a picture of a hybrid vehicle battery that should be shown, instead of the social networking picture:--R-41 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid vehicle battery.

Though the olympics in the People's Republic of China was important, a more important development was the PRC's development of its space program with the first manned space expeditions mounted by the PRC in the 2000s. It demonstrates the growing power of the PRC.--R-41 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

File:China Xichang Satellite Center - Tianlian I-01 Launch.jpg
The Peoples Republic of China completed its first manned space launch in the 2000s.
This was discussed when creating the montage. South Ossetia was not as internationally relevant as Afghanistan regardless to if Aghanistan and 9/11 we're related, one could also say the 2006 Lebanon War should be included to represent the conflict between Israel and it's neighbors during this decade, as it had more of a global significance than even South Ossetia did, but we don't want to make the montage too war-centric and need a balance from each aspect of society.. Social networking was the most important societal and technological shift during the decade as can now be witnessed by the Arab Spring, hybrid vehicles are not important to the degree social networking is whatsoever, and only represents technological change, and by far less so important than social networking and the internet in general. China is also represented with the 2008 Olympics, which China widely considered it's coming out to the world, and the Olympics was by far more internationally notable in this decade that was the Chinese space program. Perhaps, the 2010's we will see a picture of the Chinese space program. So I personally, think the image is already the best representation of the 2000's we can have. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree - it represent only the american govt. point-of-view

1) No neutral opinions where they should be. When You show the U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan it should be rather info: starting 10 year war threw the decade than "war in af. part of the war on terrror". Or at least "war in af." only, because writing the "part of war on terror" basically implies that everything is good, and "white and black" with the only option of still ongoing war(even U.S. soldiers won't agree with You, ask them). Just a photo and a link to "war in af." would be suitable. 2) Where is GPS(!). Probably the most common thing for all society was starting a GPS in civil way, and ongoing completion of other navigation programs. Check esp. english based resources, gps and smartphones were more common topics than war. And if the 1960s was the moon race the Mars was the topic too(check how many photos were even published). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence is very strange. Has no one noticed the contradiction? Rwood128 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It probably could be worded better, but it contains no contradiction. The problem with it is that people keep changing when the decade started, against Wikipedia guidelines (see WP:RY#First paragraph), so it is attempting to clarify the difference between when a decade starts, and when a century or millenium starts. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the problem simply that 'it' is ambiguous here? Is the following sentence acceptable? "The 2000s was a decade that began on January 1, 2000 and ended on December 31, 2009. The first decade of the 21st century, however, started in 2001." Rwood128 (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up as a modification of WP:RY or WP:YEARS, so you don't have the same argument spread out over all of the decade talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
What the article is saying is that the first decade of the 21st century started in 2000, one year before the century itself started. There's a dozen ways you can regard this and there are differing opinions on how decades/centuries should work. All Wikipedia can do is try to be at least consistent in itself. WP:RY is the guideline that should be followed until such a time as consensus changes its mind. As Arthur Rubin says, best discussed there if you think it needs reviewed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have referred this to WP:RY Rwood128 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No mention of iPhone

iPhone changed the way people use phones and was a notable change in the cellular industry. Someone should add that. Anaverageguy (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Do it yourself then.

No mention of the smartphones in general. We saw a really big leap in mobile phone technology during this decade. 186.6.162.117 (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Ivan747

Orphaned references in 2000s (decade)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2000s (decade)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "4-D":

  • From 4D film: Han Sunhee (February 5, 2010). "'Avatar' goes 4D in Korea". Variety. Archived from the original on 10 February 2010. Retrieved February 8, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From Avatar (2009 film): Han Sunhee (February 5, 2010). "'Avatar' goes 4D in Korea". Variety. Archived from the original on February 10 2010. Retrieved February 8, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Chiptune reference

An anonymous user objected to my addition of chiptune music, which was (perhaps erroneously) in the Fashion section; on grounds of triviality.

I've now moved it to the 'music' section, which I hope will be an accepted compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beingsshepherd (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Worst wikipedia article I've ever read

Even if you hold the arrogant belief that you can produce an unbiased article about an entire decade, the fact that a single user is behind the majority of edits should be an indicator of something gone wrong. The article is filled with various more or less obscure trivialities and is obviously written from a very limited perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.193.127 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2000s (decade)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2000s (decade)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2000s (decade)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2000s (decade)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "odoherty":

Reference named "abc1":

Reference named "fortune":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality article

Considering this is about the decade currently most fresh in human memory, it's a very substandard article. The structure seems to be confused, there is constant flipping between past and present tenses, and there are numerous events left out whilst other not particularly noteworthy affairs are covered. It also focuses much too heavily on the happenings of the decade in the USA & UK, and not elsewhere.

I'm going to make some changes here, but this page definitely needs a wider effort to bring it up to scratch. -- Half past formerly SUFCboy 01:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


I agree, this really was an Asian decade, and fairly superficial analysis has been added on the enormous social changes in China with migrant workers, sex imbalance, and consumer-producer class stratification. I'm not expert, but I think this need some work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.244.80 (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

People Section

I'd like to propose removing the "People" section. This is currently an uninformative laundry list of names. No explanation is given as to why these names are featured, no criteria is given to explain what qualifies a person's name being there, no reason given why a few hundred more shouldn't be added. It's just a random list of people of mixed fame/notability that any passing Wikipedia editor has decided merits a mention, in their opinion and/or their research.

Looking back at the archives I can see this issue has been raised a number of times, but it remains unsolved and the list continues to grow. Either we come up with a factual basis for deciding which names should be on it, or it should be removed per WP:NOTDIR. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with most of this removal. Happy for anyone to revert and discuss if they feel it should be there. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Being further bold and removing the "Sports" section here. No clear definition of what qualifies a person, among the thousands, to be mentioned in this ever-growing list. As before, if anyone can come up with a clear definition that removes the opinion and original research from this list, happy to hear it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive length

In February 2013, this article expanded from 161,430 bytes to 325,861 bytes, mostly due to contributions by User:Beingsshepherd. This page is now showing up on Special:LongPages because it is unusually large. Wikipedia:Article size recommends no more than 100K per article, so we have a lot of trimming to do. The new information doesn't necessarily need to be deleted; it should probably just be moved to subarticles, lists, categories, etc. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Support size reduction - This article is over 300 kB. We have one article per month for ten years, and one article for each year, for a grand total of 131 articles including this one (not to mention the splits for countries such as 2009 in the United States). This would come out to about a 20 kB increase on average for each article. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous list of vehicular wrecks

I removed some not-notable train and car wrecks from the list. Really, a car wreck in the UK killing three? The author obviously has no sense of perspective. 83.254.193.127 (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! This article is a wreck. It fails to answer my single question (what is the correct term to use to refer to itself, the first decade of the century and millennium), but is a laundry list of events without clearly explained significance. I keep laughing at how random the inclusion criteria were.--FeralOink (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Journalism section: Unsourced digression on Saddam Hussein's sons

I replaced the reference to East Carolina College, which has totally copy violated the original Chicago Tribune article. I removed this,

cite web|url=http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/news/inthenews/archives/2005/12/061206chicagotribune.cfm |title=Column: Displaying foes' dead hurts cause |publisher=Ecu.edu |date= |accessdate=February 19, 2014

and replaced with the original article. The problem is that neither the original article, nor the East Carolina College historian quoted, say anything that even remotely resembles what is stated here in this Wikipedia article! I am going to remove that bullet point, as it gives undue emphasis to entirely unsourced content, compared to the other item in the same section.--FeralOink (talk) 05:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to frankly say that all these decade articles {1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc) are generally in very poor shape with little/poor sourcing and lots of questionable, low quality statements added incrementally by random IPs, and no one really cares at this point to be honest. You were totally free to remove the statement in question if you wanted. That is all. Cadiomals (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, re "all these decade articles {1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc) are generally in very poor shape with little/poor sourcing and lots of questionable, low quality statements"! ;o) I'm chopping the part about the Hussein Bros, as the source article was about someone else entirely.--FeralOink (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong start and end dates

This decade, like this millennium, started on 2001-01-01, NOT on 2000-01-01. There was no year 0 (zero), the Julian/Gregorian calendar started on year 1.

I can't believe such a reliable source like wikipedia allowed this enourmous error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.193.43 (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No there is such a thing as the decade of the 2000s. It comprises the 10 years with 200 as the first three digits. This is true of the 60s etc. Would you really argue that 1960 was part of the 50s and 1970 part of the 60s? See the first paragraph of 21st century which explains the difference between 21st century and 2000s century: "The 21st century is the current century of the Anno Domini era or the Common Era, in accordance with the Gregorian calendar. It began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100.[1][2] It is the first century of the 3rd millennium. It is distinct from the century known as the 2000s, which began on January 1, 2000 and will end December 31, 2099." Btljs (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

names

Not sure who is deciding that one form of name is used more commonly than another. Unless there are some sources I propose to change this to simply list the options. Btljs (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

IMO, all the names other than those directly related to 2000s should be just listed; personally, I like the "uh-ohs", but I don't have a reliable source that it is used. It was suggested in a late 1999 issue of the Orange County Register, which I can no longer find. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@Nick Mitchell 98: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Prominent political events

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Decades, the UK and Europe, and trains before creating or restoring sub-sub-sub-sub-sub headings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently we have 6x11+2= 68 person in, I dont get why there is 2 irish, from Republic of Ireland in, and 3 israelians, too tiny countries with to many representatives, in the same decade Argentina did have 6 presidents, do we gonna put them all? where all those people that notable? I recomend just G20 leaders with more that 3 years on chargeFeroang (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, there are too many leaders in the gallery, and there are no selection criteria, as I said in another section of the talk page. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Selection criteria for the "Gallery of notable leaders"

Hi everybody, I have a question, which are the criteria and the reasons why some leaders are put on the top of the gallery? Of course politicians like George W. Bush or Vladimir Putin must be on the top of the list, but we had leaders like Gerhard Schröder who ruled Germany for five years in this decade on the top while leaders like Angela Merkel, who ruled the country for the same period who is hidden in the middle of the gallery. Or for example a G8 senior leader like Silvio Berlusconi (who governed Italy for more than 8 years in this decade and partecipated to all the main global events of 2000s like War in Afghanistan and Iraq) who isn't on the top of the list. Other examples are the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Japanese one Junichiro Koizumi. So my question is, which are the criteria that we use to put some leaders on the top of the gallery? -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that we could insert on the top of the gallery G8+China+Vatican leaders who ruled their country for more than 5 years in the decade. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I would known the opinions of Checco and Autospark, who are between the most active and prominent users, involved in politics' articles. -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Counny, you said only "Stop changing the order of the Gallery", without giving an explanation. Which are the order criteria? And why important leaders like Berlusconi and Koizumi, must be hidden in the middle of the gallery, even if they were important members of the G8 (Berlusconi was also senior leader). -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, actually Berlusconi is a very important leader with a strong influence in the European Union, But I regret not at the global level. Koizumi is an important leader with strong influence in Asia. The two leaders as well as others Could be higher in the list, But not at the top of the list. -- Counny (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your explanation :) Berlusconi has now less influence than in the past, but during 2000s he led Italy into the War in Afghanistan and in Iraq as a key ally of George W. Bush, he governed the country for more than 8 years and as I often said, he was a longest-serving G8 leader for three years. Moreover he's widely considered the predecessor of the populist movements that are shocking Europe and the world in 2010s. I think that is enough to consider him a prominent world leader. Koizumi, was Prime Minister for 5 years in a country where PMs often govern for one or two years (as Italy too), but I agree with you when you said that he was absolutely more important in Asia than in the world. I don't want to put them in the first line, but I think that they could stay in the second one with other important leaders as Schröder, who aren't more important than that two. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. The G8 is not the only criterion on the Gallery of notable leaders. The criteria are not defined. The Security Council's five permanent members, one can quote for examples include influences, economics, military, conflict and media about the world. How long they have been in power over the decade. -- Counny (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, for example China isn't a G8 member but Hu Jintao must absolutely be in the top of the list, as maybe Modi will be insert in the one of 2010s, or his successor in the 2020s' one. I think that, unfortunately for us, Berlusconi had a remarkable media coverage during his years in power, of course not only in Italy, where he controlled the majority of them, but also in the world. Anyway a country of the G8, even if it isn't a great power, it's one of the main world economies. And as you said, under Berlusconi, Italy partecipated to all the main conflicts of the decade. I think that all this fact are enough to put him in the first lines of the gallery. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Counny, I think that the last edit that you made is a good compromise :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with the compromise that was reached, even though I would considerably reduce the number of leaders in the gallery. Among them, I would however leave Berlusconi anyway as he was one of the most prominent leaders of the decade, while I do not think that he can be "considered the predecessor of the populist movements that are shocking Europe and the world in 2010s". I would exclude several leaders from the gallery: Mori, Howard, Rudd, Martin, Lagos, Bachelet, Zhu, Sukarnoputri, Ahern, Cowen, Olmert, Kim, Roh, Lee (South Korea), Gaddafi, Badawi, Balkenende, Clark, Arroyo, Iliescu, Băsescu, Lee (Singapore), Persson, Reinfeldt, Chen, Abhisit, the Vietnamese, the Saudis, and possibly others. However, I am not particularly interested on the issue and the article itself. Cheers, --Checco (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

ok wait so only people in england will give a fk about 90% of this information

literally can this page be deleted and revised from square zero pleaseMeowdieval (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 39 external links on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Split out "Name for the decade"?

A new article could be created using pieces of 1900s (decade) and 2000s (decade), which I've cobbled together a candidate for at User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts. Given that this is a general problem not specific to "2000s" decade, but is something that is a problem for referring to the first decade of every century (e.g. 1800s (decade), 1700s (decade), etc), and that it's a topic that has gathered mainstream attention (see the citations), how about a separate "Aughts" article? As an added bonus, this would also remove the confusing and unsightly redirect notice at the top of 1900s (decade) (which redirects to this article). -- RobLa (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I moved User:RobLa/sandbox/Aughts to Aughts earlier today. -- RobLa (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Where does "twenty-hundreds: come from? I've never heard that personally. Can we find a source of delete? Kortoso (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Gee, Kortoso, didn't you know? It's "standard pronunciation", per this edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000s_(decade)&diff=786733335&oldid=786718090 Unschool 03:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you really feel that ridicule is a productive mode of discussion? Jeh (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
No, and I apologize. It was not my intent to ridicule you personally, merely to show Kortoso that he was not alone in his confusion. I should have thought more carefully how my post would come across to you. Unschool 03:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Jeh (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2000s (decade). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas sales

@Marked Man 808: Per WP:VG consensus, VGChartz is not a reliable source to use on Wikipedia as it doesn't have actual sales figures or professional estimates. I've added better citations for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas sales. – Hounder4 14:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


Thank you very much, you are a senior user and I fully support your verdict :)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marked Man 808 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sports

Request: Addition of Manny Pacquiao as he won the fighter of the decade (2000s) award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prettyboy361 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:2000s for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:2000s is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2000s until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

dmy v. mdy

@WildEric19: The dates in the body _seem_ to be mostly mdy, rather than dmy. If I'm right, we could still agree to change the date formats to dmy, but it requires consensus. If I'm wrong, the lead AND dates, access-dates, and archive-dates should be changed to dmy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was the way to properly write dates. Perhaps we shall see what others think perhaps? WildEric19 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. As I noted in WT:YEARS, WP:DATERET is the relevant guideline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s/Archive_5&oldid=1140388849"