Jump to content

Talk:2000s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.141.183.48 (talk) at 22:35, 25 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is mainly about America

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

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

What to call it?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

World Leaders

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

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

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

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

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

From article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sports figures

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

Are the following well known outside the USA and Canada: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Landon Donovan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Decade name

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

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

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

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

Music

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

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

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

Maybe there should be a little bit put in about the rise of indie in the uk, don't know if its growing anywhere else

World leaders

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

Millennium

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

Years in the future

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

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

Decade as a whole

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

Beslan school hostage crisis: biased wording?

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

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

PSP Vandalism?

Article states that "Sony releases the PSP (suffers from nuemerous dead pixles and mediocre launch titles, now mainly used for homebrew) to compete with the DS." I corrected spelling error, but I am not sure if this is vandalism or not...It is not NPOV Flyerhell 06:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--JayMatsby 14 January 2006

I added much needed info on the Game Boy Advance.

-- JayMatsby 18 January 2006

What is this crap about Gen X?

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

DVRs

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

War peace and politics

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

Which One???

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

Internet usage surpasses TV viewing in 2004.

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


Napster's popularity

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

  • I removed this from the page after reading it. Can anyone site a source on this one?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000s&oldid=41226155"