Talk:2000s/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Proposal: How we should use the rest of this year

Mimzy's enthusiastic desire to expand this article fills me with dread. While she/he is clearly well-intentioned, it was exactly such intentions that led to the article becoming "the single worst article in Wikipedia". Yet, he has a point. Once the decade is out, there may begin to develop some general perceptions about the decade. While I do not believe that adequate perspective will exist on January 1, 2010, to sit back and generalize about the decade, many others will disagree.

For me, the question is not about whether or not this article should be expanded. It is inevitable that it will be expanded. But what format should it take? For many, the most obvious answer is probably that it should look like 1990s. Well, I disagree. 1990s is a collection of trivia, much as 2000s was before. Not acceptable. The problem, still, is one of perspective. We cannot allow this article to become a collection of everything that happened, or even of everything that everyone remembers. And that was the problem with this before. Anyone old enough to type would write about what they thought was interesting, with no thought about notability. And that is the reason why we have held back on expanding this article: It is nearly impossible to ascertain what is notable about the decade right now.

And here's another thing. Does everything notable that happened about the decade need to be included? Even that would make the article too big, methinks. For example: President Obama's election is clearly one of the biggest news stories, not only of this decade, but in my opinion, over the past 100 years. Should it be mentioned in this article, when all is said and done? I'm honestly not sure. Why? Because I tend to think that this article should be about the trends that define the decade, more than the individual events. For example, let's say that, ten years from now, hindsight shows us that Obama's election ushered in a slow, sweeping improvement in racial relations in the US. Now that is the sort of thing I'm looking for. The spike in gasoline prices in the summer of 2008 to US$4.00+ was a huge news story. But it lasted only a couple of months. More important, I think over the long haul, are what the increase in gas prices over the decade (pretty close to doubling from 2000 to 2009, if memory serves) has done to consumption patterns, car manufacturing, and agriculture. The things that I think belong in this article merit a paragraph, or at least two or three sentences. They almost can't be summarized in a single phrase.

Okay, I've gone on long enough. So here's what I propose: Before the calendar year is out, I would like, as a group, for us to arrive at some kind of consensus as to how we will judge what will be reasonable to include in this article. If we don't do this, it will again, inevitably, become a monstrosity. I don't mean let's decide what topics will be included. I mean, before we pick the topics to include, let us decide what the criteria are for including something in this article. Thoughts? Unschool 05:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But events are important. You want to eradicate them? Are we going to pretend the Northridge earthquake, pet rocks, Titanic fever, or Y2K hype never happened because they didn't spark long-term trends or were part of them? Shouldn't this article have a section like the events of the years articles, except be 10 times harder to get in? This is needed because the year articles are too detailed and stuff like every election ever made.

I would expect to at least remember most or nearly all of them, events that happened only a few ywars ago.. but no.

So maybe it would be less than 10% of them, because certain classes of events are less likely than average to be notable in the context of a whole decade, compared to a year. What about elections? There are about 200 countries and at least 400 election types (parliament of Aarland, Aarland prime minister, Afghan president, Afghan legistlature.. Etc.) about a thousand of these a decade, so elections would be in this class. 100 different elections in this article (that's 10 per year) is still too much, even if some of them are combined like US 2008. The reverse might be true for other classes (wars, maybe?), but we have fewer wars than elections.

Oh, and bias again. I couldn't care less what the price of gasoline is. But do you know what they're raising the subway fare to? If it weren't for the national programs I would've heard alot less about this $4.00 thing and that foreclosure thing..

Considering that 0.1% of people on this planet consists of humans in my city alone who don't own cars.. Of course, I wouldn't suggest putting that in the article unless this was a widespread problem, and increased significantly more than inflation (it did not). And we live in the same country!

What about others? I can't personally feel about the removal of the picture thing for example, that the Twin Tower on fire is not the iconic image of terrorism. So, what did I say about outsiders?.. Hmm Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right! This is a very difficult decade. 2000s it's impossible to describe clearly. James Michael 1 (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like this article to be significantly different from both the current state and the model used on the 1990s article. What this article should, in my view, be is a detailed analysis of the 2000s decade; talking about international developments, economy, art, sport, wars et al but not as lists of trivial bullet points, but as a concise and intellegent article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

David, I agree with you on the point regarding a list of bullets. That was how this article was a few years ago, and it was horrible. So you and I agree that this needs to be written as prose, right?

Where I think I disagree is on the "detailed" analysis. There are tens of thousands of articles containing the "details" of the decade we are finishing. We simply cannot, in my opinion, have a detailed article on an entire decade. It must, I feel, by its extremely comprehensive nature, be one of the most general articles in the entire project. You may not agree, but do you understand my point? Unschool 04:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think what David meant was detailed for a decade, not: a 10,000 page article which is what it might be if taken down to the detail levels of our specific-subject articles. Either that, or detailed compared to the way it is now.

Shouldn't articles expand to fill the space alotted to them? Read Summary style and see if that would make sense here. A 4-level inverted pyramid would really ameliorate the detailedness, it would go lede, overview, sections for politics, technology etc. then specific 2000s in politics 2000s in technology etc. articles linked to those sections.

I know 1970s has a prose style, the best of that century, so we could use that as a model. (unless there's something better of course, on or off wiki) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

If everyone works together on trying to come up with well-written prose, references, cutting out useless information, and other important quality-control edits, then writing a well-written article should be achievable. bob rulz (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing on a prose format is certainly the first step, and arguably the most important. But the more difficult thing will be to ascertain what is sufficiently significant to include. To my mind, something that hasn't been covered by ALL major media (i.e., The New York Times, CNN, The Times, and perhaps some non-English sources (Der Spiegel, perhaps?) simply should not even be considered. In other words, if it wasn't covered by all major outlets, then it can't possibly be significant enough to place in our limited space.

But that is the minimum bar, if we are to keep this from growing out of control. And at present, I am at a loss of ideas for how to keep this from growing into a patch of weeds. Unschool 21:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How about being written about later by a PhD in the relevant field? A history PhD if possible? Where can scholarly treatments on chronologic subjects be found? Just brainstorming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This problem is not going away

We're near the end, folks. We're going to have people with legitimate things to add (like Modernist, who understandably wants mention of the big tsunami in the Indian Ocean), and others who will want to add in every artist who had a top 40 song or every fashion trend that lasted at least 12 hours. How are we going to keep this organized and not-overly long? Unschool 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply: its been updated lately and it looks organized and pretty much complete, so no i dont think it will get wait out of hand. --Deanmullen09 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

New Collage

I created a new collage based on major events that happened this decade. There are american events involved, but I used ones that in my mind helped change the perspective and path of the decade. That being Obama, 9/11, Columbia Disaster, and Hurricane Katrina. Enjoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude018219293 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have anything to say about the collage? Is this something we want here? Unschool 14:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we don't need the Wikipedia picture, Euro picture, Beijing 2008 picture, or the George Bush picture on the collage. Also, the Barack Obama picture can be changed too. 3:41 EDT, 27 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.28.176 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone support just getting rid of the collage altogether, with the thought that it's highly unlikely that one montage can be sufficiently representative at this point? Unschool 00:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone oppose just getting rid of the collage altogether, with the thought that it's highly unlikely that one montage can be sufficiently representative at this point? Unschool 06:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I highly support getting rid of that ugly nonsense. Surely some randomly-made collage isn't a neutral representation of a worldwide view of the entire decade. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I will also highly support getting rid of that collage per what crazyinsane typed, plus its in the wrong place and echoing what i typed in a recent edit summary i think it was bit too americanized for a global subject (out of all "notble" leaders why choose two American leaders and then include the john paul pic with more american presidents in it as well?). Even when we decide to put a collage into this article i think there should be a census on what to include if that ever come to be. Pro66 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are a few things missing in the world changing events category, and yes this is way too US-centric. For example, the election of Obama as the first black US president is not on the list, i don't think any discussion is needed on whether it is warrented for inclusion. Other major developments have happened like the first elections in Saudi Arabia (2003), the first Kuwaiti women elected to parliament (2008), or other noteworthy events like the formation of the African Union or the near collapse of state power in parts of Mexico (2006-09). These are just a few ideas, there is so much missing from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.122.183 (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

is this a world changing event?

is the death of Michael Jackson a world changing event of the decade? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.108.211 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson may or may not be mentioned in future history books. His death, other than the year it occurred, will not be. Unschool 14:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion: Merge with 21st century

Sorry, but this article is a disgrace. I'm gonna go ahead and propose that we perhaps merge and redirect this article to 21st century for the time being either until can get some perspective on how it should be written and maintained, or until someone provides a good proposal (and perhaps posts it to User:Whoever/2000s (decade)) to completely revamp and overhaul this mess of an article. What are opinions on this?. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these comments were written because, at the time, the article looked like this. I'm hoping, CIS, that it's better now? Unschool 14:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is much improved though there is still room for more but I'm not sure I agree that all the subjects covered by this (especially the naming of the decade) would necessarily fit into the "21st Century" page. If there could be a seperate heading on that page for the discussion that there has been worldwide over this issue then I think I might agree to the proposed move. --Mapmark (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

2000-2004

Does anyone prefer the early 2000s like me? I think trends in 2000-2004 were better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.31.212 (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) nah i prefer the late 2000s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have any taste then! How could someone like shitty music, Hannah Montana, Jonas Brothers and the ugly-looking cars is beyond me. Besides, in 2000-2004 the economy was in a better state. 79.132.31.212 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Natural disasters

The notion that "natural disasters" is one of the topics that has dominated this decade is a bit short-sighted, methinks. Natural disasters have occurred in every decade. Sure, some more than others, but people always think that the time in which they live is unique.

Look, our currently brief article has stayed brief very conciously, by a firm consensus of its editors, because we don't want it to become a "list" of everything that has happened. I'm not saying that there will never be a place in this article for natural disasters, because I'm quite certain that there will be. But the point is, we have worked hard to keep this article from turning into a mushpot, as it was in the past. So yes, in this case, I suggest that if we are going to include natural disasters—when the consensus has been to not have an individual section on any other occurences during the decade—does require that it first be discussed here. No disrespect intended, we just need to talk it out. Unschool 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just counted and find that in the current introductory paragraph, following the word "topics" we have 95 words, of which 30 are currently dealing with natural disasters. This is the kind of disproportionate coverage that is going to start this article down the path of allowing everyone to put in everything. Yes, these natural disasters are significant. But by the current version's interpretation, these disasters are far and away the single most important thing that occurred in this ten-year period. I think we need to discuss this first. I've never been involved in an article where the editors worked together so consistently to maintain consensus; I don't think that this is the time to stop. Unschool 16:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assessment above. While I agree that natural disasters do occur in every decade, the loss of life and devastation done by the Boxing Day tsunami in Asia was unprecedented in the 20th century let alone the 21st century. Not only that the catastrophe essentially put Wikipedia on the map by virtue of it's complete coverage of the story...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That it "essentially put Wikipedia on the map" is all the more reason to be cautious about overplaying it here. The moment we become self-referential, we begin to appear self-reverential, and we thus lose credibility. Look, I'm agreeing with you that it belongs, but not that it is more important than anything else that happened during the decade. Unschool 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The catastrophe's had an enormous effect on elevating awareness both ecological and political. Additionally the catastrophe in the wake of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake essentially put Wikipedia on the map by virtue of it's unprecedented and complete up to date coverage of the story, is probably worth mentioning by itself as an innovation of the first decade of the 21st century...Modernist (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I prefer this mushpot, as it was in the past to what we have currently. This article says nothing - a few platitudes - a few sentences - a few paragraphs - what remains is useless to future generations - the article fails to deliver any real information, any anthropological clue that anyone ever lived in it (the 2000's). The previous version is filled with life and complication, and reality - This is an encyclopedia with unlimited potential - the article as it stands now is too neat - and says nothing. The decade ends in a little over a month by the way...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about wikipedia is that it can be edited at anytime, i think its best we wait good few years to get some propoer historical viewpoint of this decade to make this article more detailed, at the moment if we add more stuff to this people would most defo add pov's into the article to which i think is the reason that the article looks as it is now. Pro66 (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best to do the right thing the right way, worse to do the right thing the wrong way, while this article like all the articles here can be changed at anytime, that is a poor excuse for not adding material and changing it as time goes by...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Aughts ought to be the Ohs!

I want to offer my recommendation that this decade be referred to as the oh's instead of the aughts. Just sounds cooler. Thanks. Robin Clark Sparta, TN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.54.177 (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

bad section

I found this section in the article:

More others

• Disease has seen AIDS continue to spread across Africa, meanwhile swine flu spread into the first pandemic in more than 40 years in 2009, with the swine flu pandemic.
• Books such as Harry Potter (series) and Twilight (series) where turned into movies only a while after being released as books, the harry potter (book series) was seen as the best selling book series of the decade.
• Global warming seen the average global temperature rise 0.25 degrees Celsius from 2000 to 2009.
• also on July 22nd, 2009 the centuries longest eclipse occurred in Asia.

the heading is meaningless, but that mataches the section, since there is not anything that conects the parts: aids, harry potter, global warming, and an eclipse. this is not fit writing for the encyclopedia, and i am going to remove it. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

purpose of the article?

of course everyon has an opionon of their own, but let me ask something? would it be helpful to this article if I included the statement "People in the 2000s watched television" or "people in the 2000s drove cars"? I dont think so. why not? Because its ALWAYS been true, ever since we have had cars and TVs. theres no point in including something that is always being true. So if someone writes that "Comedy shows were popular in the 2000s" I think it isalso pointless, since there has never been a time since I love lucy that comedy shows were not popular.

it woulld be impossible to enclude everthing that ever happend in this decasde, so we need to inlcude the stuff that made this decade diffrent than other decades. 9/11, Obama, global warming, Great Recession of 2008, and stuff like that. not everyday and every decadde stuff. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please tone down your editorial comments in your summaries, your rhetoric is too shrill and verges on violations of both WP:AGF and WP:NPA...Modernist (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You think the above comment is "too shrill"? I would think outside observers would think his comments are reasonable in tone. Kransky (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to the above, I was referring to comments like: - this is not a very smart statement--how can anyon judge this?, really? says who? what a ridiculously unsupported statemetn, but even worse, changed perceptions HOW - need to be toned down...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

in my opinon Modernist is not being faire with me. he reverted a huge amount of work [1] which makes me look like a vandal even thogh i had made good edits and had edit sumaries well explaning what i was doing. now he critisizes my tone (which maybe he is rite about--i am not in a positon to argue about that) but says it makes me a vandal. i do not think this is corect to do. I did not want to takl about this here but i am blocked from takling to him on his talk page. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply do your best as an editor, and tone your summaries down, I know that you are not trying to vandalize the article - just keep your comments simple...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Names in Ireland

The sources do not support that it's in general use, only that it's used by those media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Numerous media outlets in Ireland have adopted this name, indicating the populace is aware of, and is using the term. Artx (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

queston

i made a post here: [2] that got taken away because it was said was a persinal atack. i completly do not understand. i think i am disagreeing with another editor but i have reasons for my edits and i explane them and then my edits get removed and my reasons are not being listined to. i know i mite be wrong but i deserv to be lisened to not have my edits remooved with no explantion (ONE time i saw a reason for changing my work but the reason given was not to do with my reason i gived.)

please someone read my last post befor this one and explaine why it is personil atack because i donot understand. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

While I have considerable respect for Modernist's work, I, too, am unable to locate the "personal attack" in there. When the editing gets hot, it can be a challenge to look at things from a WP:COOL, collected, and objective standpoint. Being relatively uninvolved with this particular dispute, I don't interpret anything in that diff as an attack; but if I were more engaged in the argument, I might be liable to feel as though disagreement carried disrespect. Now, I'm not trying to defend or to criticize anybody; I just don't want things to get so tense that anyone feels unwelcome or uncomfortable here. Just rest assured that WP editors want to show their WP:LOVE, even if they sometimes don't succeed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also commenting here that, as I mentioned on the IP's talk page with this edit, I also do not see a personal attack in the edit which was reverted here. Applying a level 4 warning to the user's talk page (here) does not appear supported by the edits that appear involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the arguments should be really directed toward the material, and not towards specific editors, by naming the thread about me - it personalizes the issue. I know 68.17.232.180 is well meaning, and I think he can make many valuable contributions, however to direct the action to me rather than the material at hand is why I referred to it as personal...Modernist (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To that extent that he was questioning an edit which you made, yes, it was personal ... but it was most certainly not an attack. Disagreeing with your edits is not a personal attack. At worst, I would call using your name in the subject of the thread to be impolite - but that can be fixed without needing to escalate to a warning onto the user's talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the warning, lets try to address the article issues, and not each other...Modernist (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for consensus

Should this referenced material from Time magazine be kept or should it be deleted?

Because of the overall negative experiences that occurred during this decade: e.g. (9/11/2001, War in Iraq, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, Economic Collapse, etc.), Time Magazine states in an article entitled "The '00s: Goodbye (at Last) to the Decade From Hell" that this decade will be probably be known as the "Decade from Hell", "the Reckoning", "Decade of Broken Dreams", or the "Lost Decade".

It reads well, seems reasonable, is referenced to a valid source and is interesting. In my opinion it should be kept...Modernist (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The entry does not belong in the article. It's speculative at best. The article is little more than an opinion piece by a single author, and there's zero evidence that the suggested names have any traction in popular culture. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i understand maybe it can be kept but i am thinking that what we put in the article needs being what is know to be true but this coment that 2000s will be called 'decade from hell' is just speculation by one esay writer for TIME and we canot know what it is going to be called so is it vioalting WP:CRYSTAL? 68.17.232.180 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

comment This is a good use of the talk page, whatever is decided about the issue by editors is the way these disputes should and can be handled, well done...Modernist (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong position one way or the other, but I wonder if Time has fallen prey to its own sort of WP:RECENTISM. What decade hasn't had its fair share of "negative experiences"? War, genocide, hunger, disaster--these aren't exactly new phenomena. If Time is right, and people really do single this decade out as something unusually dismal, then I'm afraid the public may have succumbed to the same recentism as the magazine. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

i dont know but i am thinking maybey it is a very young writer who canot know how bad can be other time. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I propose an alternate wording for the addition that references the Time Magazine article and its "decade descriptive names" as an American media option. I feel that due to the large print and online distribution network they employ, that these choices bear credence. A number of sources also bring Time Magazine to task, and in doing so only strengthen the position that the decade is still in search of a name. Artx (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In America, Time Magazine has suggested that it may come to be know as the "Decade from Hell", "the Reckoning", "Decade of Broken Dreams", or the "Lost Decade", in response to the large number of human tragedies and natural disasters that currently inhabit our shared cultural psyche (e.g. 9/11/2001, War in Iraq, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, Economic Collapse). Although these proposed names do not specifically identify the decade in any numerical fashion they may act as greater overall descriptors for this time period. Artx (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The Article by Time Magazine appears to encapsulate most, but by no means all, the issues of the 2000s. Certainly (in its own admission), from a Western standpoint this decade sucks, but it presents the information in a clear, methodical and (most importantly - and here is where we can learn) a strategic perspective. The fact that real incomes for Americans dropped from $53,000 to $50,000 in ten years sounds scary for anybody.

I would cite the reference to the article, but I would not of course not want us to replicate the article here. Kransky (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects I am going to get rid of that name and the Time reference. Regardless if the source is reliable and the magazine a major publication calling the 2000s the "worst decade ever" lacks a Neutral point of view and subject to recentism. Will people born 50 years from now look back and call this the worst decade? Do people who remember the horrors of the 1930's and 40's call this decade the worst? Heck even present day people born in say, China or Brazil might call this the best decade ever. And I cant find that name use anywhere else. Finally almost every editor before me seems to object to the name. This is completely against Wikipedia policy and it has to go.--70.249.150.96 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

bad sentence

I am thinking that this is a bad written sentence: Human climate change or Global warming became a household word in the 2000s, many people only knew of it in the mid 90s but by now it was a household word, please do not say it is a personil atack to be saying this, but i think it does not read like an adult has wrote it and i think that is true of many many sentence in this article and i am not best at fixing it but i CAN tell it is not good but i am not personily atacking anyone. 68.17.232.180 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It needs copy-editing - If I have time later I'll look at it. List the edits here that you aren't certain about or just the diff...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mental health crisis

In the lead, "the mental health crisis" was listed as a continuing social issue of the 1990s, and was noted as a potential factor in "mass shootings". It's true that school shootings were disproportionately frequent in the 1990s and 2000s; but it's not clear as to what "mental health crisis" is alleged to contribute to this frequency. Anybody have any idea? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I am not sure what "mental health crisis" has emerged. However there has been greater awareness of mental health issues, which might give the impression there is a crisis (not in itself a bad thing). I am not sure if school shootings have been any more frequent than before. Kransky (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Intro

I will rewrite the introduction. Before I do, let me tell you what I think is wrong with what we currently have, which is wishy-washy, uninformative and riddled with cliches.

• The decade was distinguished by several wide-ranging topics. Meaningless. Every decade is distinguished by many "topics" (a better word would be "issues"). Why not introduce to the reader a single, useful high level fact about the decade.
• These include... Let's not write lists, including those pretending to be prose
• ..increased reliance on international trade, reliance? in order for what? you could say there is a greater volume of worldwide trade, however this graph would show that there was greater growth was in the 1990s and 1980s than in the 2000.
• as well as further economic integration; To a degree with the EU, but really nothing much has happened multilaterally since GATS was established in 1995.
• an explosion in telecommunications and data communications; Ghastly cliche. Maybe you could say more knowledge is being produced and disseminated digitally, and to a wider audience, but this is by no means unique to this decade.
• and further dependence on technology. Again, for what? Why not mention what breakthroughs have taken place?
• Underscoring this globalization was an increase in anxiety and alarm. Is the word "underscoring" supposed to mean there is a relationship between anxiety and globalisation? If there is I doubt that represents a worldwide view. One could argue there actually has been less anxiety in the West, as manufacturing sectors have been hollowed out since the 1970s.
• The decade was marked by ecological, energy, and economic crises. Not sure what ecological crises have emerged. Global warming has been an issue for some time (Endangered Earth was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in...1987). If climate change transpires to be significantly dangerous to the world, we will see it in following decades.
• It saw heightened worries about international war and terrorism; Or you could say there was international war and terrorism. This time in other parts of the world than before. It would not be unreasonable to add a sentence about a more assertive US security posture under Bush, 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan.
• a string of natural disasters, including the Asian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina; Guess what kid, in 2043 our children are not going to be saying "boy, there were a lot of natural disasters back in the 2000s". Disasters happen in every decade; this decade is no different to others.
• an escalation of certain social issues of the 1990s, such as increased rates of hate crimes and school shootings; Huh? What issues? I think there is a lot more tolerance, which makes people aware of their behaviours and, ironically, gives the perception there is less tolerance. Would you seriously argue that a reference to school shootings (I can only think of Virginia Tech happening this decade) should go without a mention of bloodier events in Congo, Israel or Liberia?
• and growing concerns about global warming, which was likely accelerated by the continued burning of fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4][5] as above. Let's talk more about what happened, and less about what we thought
• According to the Global Language Monitor, the rise of China as an economic superpower was the most-read news story of the decade Never heard of this Global Language Monitor, and I doubt anybody here would want to wager that Chinese economics was more hot a news item to the world as Britney Spears. Why not mention China's rise, rather than what was read?

Something to consider. Kransky (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with any of your critiques or suggestions. I, personally, have been trying to help elevate the article at least from "bad" to "decent", but your rewrite might very well send it up into the realm of "good". Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it your best shot Kransky...Modernist (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks a good rework of the intro would be in order. Artx (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I see it has been done--and I, for one, like what I see. Good work, Kranksy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job...Modernist (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

my mistake

i said he called my edit 'worthless' but he said 'useless' but it means the same does itnt? 66.157.232.247 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what was deleted by me - Hansadam II, Prince of Liechtenstein, pases a new constution makig him the more powerful king in Europe in 2004. I said in my edit summary - deleted useless addition. Do you consider that to be essential information?..and then there is the issue of the spelling and the grammar...Modernist (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact most of that section appears to be useless, even after I fixed the spelling and the grammar and added the wikilinks and yet WP:UCS says that it should be drastically edited down to the essential political changes that truly had an effect on the decade...Modernist (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

you are a POVer. i know what is it means 'esential', and it i s only youre OPINION ( ispelled THAT write). EVERTYING I DO YOU SAY IS BAD. you are NOT faire and i am not likeing it any more.

i can try to spel l beter but it will be more slow. i have likked it when i see other editsors fixing and helpin my spellings because they are GOOD at it i am not but i add important FACTS to wikipeda that is importnt too. evryone helps but only one person here always critasizes me always. i can discus if you like but donot be rude and delete my work with no explaning. please.66.157.232.247 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to understand how to NOT take everything so personally. I have constantly fixed your edits, however you seem to take everything personally and that is going to continue to cause you difficulty. Try to understand that criticism or correction of an edit is not an attack on you...Modernist (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

i am reading THREE editors up on this page[3][4][5] who say it is YOU who are saying personl atack with no reason.[6] i am not upset with ruler when he critsized me becase he EXPLAINED his revrt and YOU many time are revrting me with no explaining or making fun of my work is 'useless'.[7]. how are you saying i am taking personl things when evryone says it YOU are takng personl things. i dont want to talk anymor to you but i am pashent and will talk more if you want but i want you to leve me allone and i too will not change you edits. 66.157.232.247 (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot really blame 247 if he wants to include a reference to Liechtenstein Constitutional change. Modernist has identified a problem with this article - there are far too many references to trivial events that may be facinating to some people but are not really what the decade is famous for. I would not think the following items set the character of the decade:

* the election of the President of Mongolia

* Mac OS X

* The discovery of dwarf planets

* Call of Duty... Kransky (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

but who can say it what is moste importnt enoughf to put in these article? I am thinkng if it is hapening in 2000-2009 it can put in this article. why not? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Notability, which gives guidance to what should go in or stay out of an article. It is a question of relativity (which some people have argued, citing the unbalanced references to video games). The 2008 Amendments to the Constitution of Russia may have been notable to Russia, but were not really notable to the rest of the world. But it was certainly more important to whatever happened in Liechstenstein. Kransky (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

okay sure i am glad to read it but i think it does not helping here. why am i say this? this article is about EVERYTHING that happens in 2000s decade. big problem because everything is being too much for article. i copy and paste this from Wikipedia:Notability:

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles.

So guess what it means to us we can put in what? i am not knowing but i see more news today about young actress that die who i never heard of --brittany murphy-- than i see about argentina in one hole year of united stateses news. i am saying but this is not good way to decideing this. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unipolarity

When reading this article I noticed it uses the term unipolarity. I assume whoever wrote this is implying the hegemony of the United States in the world? Given the current conditions of the world I am not sure if the term unipolarity should be the right one for different reasons. Despite the fact that the US is the largest economy it has become clear in the recent years that the US has a problem of dependability on other nations. A failed military strategy in the middle east that after several years still does not come to a resolution is another way to defy the concept of hegemony. It's my opinion that this term might be biased and should be replaced for a more neutral term. thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, unipolarity does not imply hegemony. Secondly I wouldn't say its inclusion is bias - there are champions of the US that decry its perceived decline, and others who fear the US as a hyperpower. Thirdly if you read the original sentence I was discribing the situation in 1990s, not this decade. Kransky (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to countries political systems.

Something we need to mention. I think we need to mention geopolitical changes for this decade. I’m not just talking about things like Obama becoming president or China becoming a superpower. I'm talking about major changes to an entire countries political system like Yugoslavia finally dissolving for good or Nepal becoming a federal republic after abolishing its monarchy. Changes like this are far more lasting and important than just countries switching out their leaders. Think we should do this section?--173.172.7.181 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

its most important i am thinking. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are only two instances of geographical changes, dissolution of Yugoslavia and independence of East Timor. As for changes to a country's political system, I can only think of Nepal, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Georgia, Ukraine, Somalia, Yugoslavia plus some African coups d'etat. This decade is perhaps the most politically stable one in memory, although a lot of lives were lost to wars, terrorism, natural disasters and epidemics such as AIDS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

i am thinking 1900s are more of not changing more than 2000s. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

discrimnation

why is this edit [8] okay? i dont think it is. we are not alowed to be POV in wikipedia and if russia has section why no for romania and if europe has section why no for argentina? argentina is #8 bigest country in world. what are rules then? if we can no have for argentina and romania a time line why for others? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

i am not making any personl atack on anyones here i mean nice my queston. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

All the other countries and regions listed are considered world powers. A separate article 2000s in central America might warrant such a section, but this article would be too much long if political events in all countries were included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

can i please see list of 'important' countrys or 'world powers' your POV says is important enugh to include in article? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

are world power video game more important for this artcle than president of #8 largst country in the world? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how one goes about determining which nations are "world powers" and which are not. There's the whole "superpower" idea, and some nations have more military firepower and colonial history than others, but I'm not sure that "big and bad" is a particularly admirable criterion for importance. The consensus at places like Talk:2009 and WP:RY has continually been to emphasize the international and to downplay the domestic. I personally don't think that the "Timeline in [Country]" format is appropriate for this article at all. "Timeline in [Continent]" could work; but I would think that, if the country format is to be used, then any event in any country--so long as it receives sufficient coverage on multiple continents--is fair game for inclusion. But the "Timeline in [Continent]" route might be a little more elegant. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have so many Timelines?

We should only have ONE timeline, for ALL countries. There is NO reason why they should be separate. There are events (the Tsunami, GFC, 9/11, Millenium Goals etc) which affected many countries, so why duplicate entries? We don't need to waste time

If somebody wants to create and maintain articles like 2000s in Finland, 2000s in first person shooter video games, 2000s in golf etc feel free to create them. But unless a meteor destroys Helsinki next week I doubt Finland will appear in this article because nothing significant happened in that country this decade.

Reading some comments above, I understand that some of you believe it is unfair that a certain fact appears in the absence of something else, and in many cases your complaints are valid. We need to work together to agree what should go in this article, rather than

Could I have some comments regarding my proposal to:

• remove timelines to just one.
• limit timeline entries to (say) the 30 most important events that took place?

Kransky (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The most significant events and simplified sections make sense...Modernist (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion we need to keep the list, but re-organize it into geographical regions. For example instead of having a list of "2000s in the U.S", "2000s in the E.U", and "2000s for anywhere else" we should have "2000s in North America", "2000s in Europe", and "2000s in the Middle East". That's how it was done in the previous decade articles and it worked much better there. Also it helps avoid regionalisms and allows us to keep in what we have writtin so far.--70.249.150.96 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Selected political changes

It is an irrelevant section with arbitrary content. I propose to rename it "Major political changes" and to keep events of global influence. Major events includes changes in G-20 members countries plus Fidel Castro's withdrawal (it is undeniably an historic event) an other important changes considered by international media as important (left-wing governments in South America, some changes Africa and Asia). Please let here your propositions. As it is difficult to find consensus on the point, I propose to remove any content in the section that is still unreferenced by 72 hours. (I am not completely persuaded that elections in Mongolia, Maldives, Panama and Turkmenistan are more notable events than Chavez, Uribe, Bachelet and Morales coming to power, with all the respect due to the leaders of these countries) Pahapah (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, in my opinion most of it - additions on Mongolia, Maldives, Panama, Gabon, Paraguay, Uruguay, Botswana, Central Africa Republic, Cambodia, and Turkmenistan should be removed...Modernist (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How is are you decided to which countrys you include? some of this countrys i am too thinking are not importnt to me but some which are. it to me is seem like you are to gether POV which i know is not wikipedia. i ask before for list of which are important countrys to include and am not ansered by nobody. please let me see list and then two explaine to me why which ones are on thes list and which ones are not. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot spell and you cannot write properly in this language, I suggest that you begin to either learn the language or get someone else to edit for you...Modernist (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

okay if you are caling me vandal because i am makeing mistake? that is vandal for you? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You are best advised to learn to spell and to write properly...Modernist (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for this edit: [9] i was thinking it looks sterange but i was not knowing 100%. i see looking beter now. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made a distinction between major political changes, ie new leaders coming to power in influent countries, and I added a section for important evolutions in the world. I will complete it soon: it must include evolution in international relations (for example relations between the United States and South America, Europe and the Middle East) and various changes. Pahapah (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nu metal

Nu metal was a very poplar form of rock music at the start of the decade till mid-decade with nu metal acts getting huge album sales such as linkin park's hybrid theory and what ever the limp bizkit's one was called amongst others with hugh publicity i am sure that nu metal should get mentioned in the music section. Pro66 (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

he does it again

is it okay on wikipedia caling someones a vandal if not true? i am always haveing someone but only one someone saying this about me. why is [10] this one caling this vandaling? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough already, this is the English Wikipedia, either write in coherent language, with citations, correct spelling, within consensus or go elsewhere...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

i can mayebe try beter. when i writeing slower i do beter i know. but i am not thinking for this you are changing my editsing.

You are thinking because i am not so good writeing i am slow understnding but you are wronge. i am writeing things you take out before because you have POV and dont like my edits. editors befor on this talk page say it too that you are unfaire in how you trete me and i am trying to be civil like you say but you are not civil on me. you call my edit useless and stupid and vandal and i am not any of this ones. not evryone is good in writeing but other editers can corect mistake if you dont delete it first. oh you are always making me so upset noone else is like you are being. why? i dont know. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly you are unfair to expect others to correct your mistakes, others to decipher what you are trying to say, and others to understand what you are adding here unclearly. You are consistently objecting to consensus, demanding your own point of view and in general ignoring the opinions of other volunteer editors who are working hard on this article also...Modernist (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to be trying to write beter when i write in this article but i am NOT 'objecting to consensus' show me where. i will take time, use help to write my parts of article beter but i havenever ignoring opinion of others. sometimes i am ignored like no one still has explaned how we can no which ones are important countrys to include and which ones are not. i want to see list or else is it just POV each time i write and you need explaneing how is we are decideing which ones are on list. every time someone say 'it is not important enough'. how are we saying? 70.153.208.164 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

IMPORTANT FOR EVERYONE

i know i am sownding to some peersons like i am not smart they are thinking its ok ignoreing me is no problem. but you cant know from my writeing how smart or not smart am i. i DO understands much more than you thinking and i am RITE this is big problem for this pages. listen to this:

NOONE knows what is and is not okay that is why everything gets changed many times every day. it is not for me to decideing what is important level needed but it IS for me to say for all other editers that you MUST decideing HOW everybody can know how we can know what is right to put in here and what is not important for this. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to register yourself as an editor, and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia practices and how we resolve conflict. We are here to help one another, and it appears you are not aware how things work around here. You may also wish to start editing in a language you are familiar with. Please understand that expecting people to fix your mistakes is like asking your guests to clean your toilet, and may result in people having an initial poor impression of you. Kransky (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What this article should be about

I hope that people will judiciously add and further refine this article. I would respectfully ask editors to remember that this article is about the decade, and not about the events themselves that took place. For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to mention that there was a food supply crisis (with links to the respective article). It would be useful to link the event to other events and themes if reliable sources confirm a relationship exist. But I do not think we would need to go into considerable about what transpired, or worse, continue a debate from another article here. Some contributors here have generously lent their knowledge on issues that while may be important, could be condensed down (do we need seven paragraphs on astronomy? what the heck is a Zhu Zhu pet?)

Also, show some perspective. In describing an event there could be a temptation to describe it in more dramatic language that is required. Some examples:

• In 2000, the Dot-com bubble burst, causing turmoil in financial markets (really?)
• The 2000s saw a rise in PDAs and high speed internet. (do you mean PDAs float in the air?)
• Economic developments in the first half of the 2000s focused on the explosion of Asia and South America's economic and political potential (oh Lord....)

If you read these kinds of cliched, sweeping statements in a daily newspaper, you would probably loose confidence in its credibility rather quickly.

I will probably be guilty of the above gaffes when I edit, and I hope somebody will pick me up on this too... Kransky (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Economics

I think we better redo the article on economics. Yes, it is true China had stellar growth, but there seems to be little reason to repeat this statement (without accompanying statistics) so many times. There are other minor niggling issues aside from the many grammatical mistakes made - Iceland did not go bankrupt, "globalisation and its discontents" seems a bit out of date, I don't know what that map is supposed to do....any comments, or can I remove the entire section? Kransky (talk) 08:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to rewrite the whole section. I tried to improve it, but it is hard to add content without repetition. However, Globalization and Its Discontents is not out of date (the book was written at the beginning of the decade) and the events described in the section are relevant: international trade negotiations (Doha Round, Cancun conference) were major events of the decade, it is necessary to write a few words about them. The map was to illustrate the international tensions in international trade, but it is not essential here. There may be some grammatical mistakes (most often my mistakes), sorry for that. I totally agree to remove Iceland going bankrupt. You can rewrite the section, then I am also willing to contribute. Pahapah (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added some figures in PPP because of huge distortions in countries rankings. Also specified growth in current prices, not constant dollars. Removed some nominal GDPs because they are useless in the section. Only rankings and shares in total GDP are relevant, it was indeed a good idea to add these figures. Also I have grouped developed and developing countries in two distinct paragraphs. Removed some countries, were not essential here. Pahapah (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This section will be rewritten anyway when 2009 data comes out (interesting to see how far the UK will have fallen due to the GFC!). I am just wondering if presenting information in a graph would be more effective than prose, and if we should either limit our statistics to just GDP or PPP (not both).

Also note that "The shares in world GDP decreased for almost every advanced economy", and the statement on various EU states declining, is wrong; as the figures I showed illustrated, only the US, Japan and the UK had falls in their relative contribution to global GDP.

I think we will need to rewrite this section a few times to make it more readable, since presenting data for GDP, PPP, rankings and shares in world economy for each country, for each time period, could be a bit messy. You have done a pretty good job, though. Kransky (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

opions

persons keep puting in what is there opinon only and not fact. this shoud stop. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Australian Bushfires

I don't see why the Black Saturday bush fires are not significant enough to have a picture relating to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aghorler (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as an Australian, I think I am in a position to say:

• this article concerns the most significant and epoch-shaping events of the decade
• the bushfires, while tragic, was not a earthshattering event to the world, or even Australia.
• bushfires happen every decade; the 2000s was no different
• natural disasters occur everywhere, and the bushfires is inconsequential in comparision to many, many disasters we will not be listing.
• if you want to illustrate anthropogenic climate change there are other disasters where the link is more established
• the idea of using a koala to represent climate change in this instance would be like illustrating World War II with a duck injured in the Madagascar campaign. Inappropriate in terms of choice of scale, context and relevance. Kransky (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC) (happy new year)

Article is actively undergoing a major edit

I decided to try to improve the article as much as I can. I'll write a summary of all my changes here when I'll finish. This might take a while, so be patient. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I placed the Inuse template. why was I reverted? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed this article is currently being worked on by several editors, and not by you alone - suggestion - back off...Modernist (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That’s what the template is intended for - to make a major revamp without interruptions for a reasonable period of time. Even though we have minor differences of opinions (nothing which could not eventually be resolved with the assistance of an operator which would determine if your intentions for the lists section in the 1940s article meets Wikipedia's standards), you cannot deny the valuable work I have recently been contributing to several decade pages (mostly 1940s and 1980s). I have been working continuously to improve the articles as much as I can. Please let me finish my work and we'll discuss the changes in a civilized way afterwards. Deal? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I remove the template from the 1940s because you are now editing here? Or are you planning on reserving space for yourself on a few more articles as well?..Modernist (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reordering sections

I believe that:

• It makes no sense to keep the "Popular culture" section amongst the top sections of the article.
• The "Politics and wars" section should defiantly be amongst the top sections (above "Economics" section, the "Science and technology" section and the "Environment" section).

My suggestion is:

1. Names of the decade
2. Population and social issues
3. Politics and wars
4. Economics
5. Science and technology
6. Environment
7. Popular culture
8. Timeline

Any objections? Does someone have a better idea? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a little taken aback by your seeming inability to grasp the concept of working with others on a collaborative project. You have attacked my efforts on other articles and I sense some kind of threat here. This article is being edited by several editors now, it cannot be closed down by you. If you want to make edits then do so, without attempting to intimidate, threaten or close down anyone else...Modernist (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

i am understanding why thecuriousgnome is wanting to put on the tag but it is not very possibel i think. i am seing NO aritcles with so much editors always work on it. we work on only one secton eacch so we dont hurt our work on each other. so how can this be that he change the whoole thing?

but i also know he has bringing good idea here to talk about what order should be in all the sectons. i am likeing his order for sectons a little bit. if i am decideing i am thinking to putting the population more low [because it is always every decade goes up no big news that one] and may be enrvonmnt more high because so much talk this decade about golbal warmings. but yes, popular culture at botom on top of timeline is good. wars and economics high, most so for economics because are two resesions this decade. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am oblivious to any other debate that has taken place, but Gnome's idea appears sound. If you have a problem tell me what is up and I will try to offer a second opinion (note I am flying tonight to India - happy new year everybody) Kransky (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year Kransky, have a good flight!...Modernist (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Calemdar dating

There is a misperception as to when the eras begin and end. The media is promoting this era as ending on December 31, 2009. However, many do not realize there never was a beginning year zero. Hence the calendar always must begin with a year starting with one and thus ends on a year zero. The proof, just count your fingers and ask yourself "do I start counting "zero"? Of course not since we must begin with one and thus end on our tenth finger. This problem seems to pop up especially at the end of each century but it also obtains for any era. 24.113.214.125 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC) Dandydigger

Let's count to 10:

• 2000 - 1
• 2001 - 2
• 2002 - 3
• 2003 - 4
• 2004 - 5
• 2005 - 6
• 2006 - 7
• 2007 - 8
• 2008 - 9
• 2009 - 10 - that's this decade...Modernist (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking that he is knowing that is ten years but he is asking something not that. he is thinking 2000 is not in this decade. I want to ask him a queston helps me to undrstand this: what decade is it you put 1980? is it in 1970s? evryone knows it is in 1980s. then 1990 is in 1990s. And 2000 is NOT in 1990s so must it be in next decade it is the 2000s.

evryone here is knowing that what you say is real that there is no year zero. and we are knowing that 2000 is last year of last century. but rules for centurys and rules for decades so are not same. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, any period of ten years is, by definition, a decade. 1996-2005, 2002-2011, etc. The question is, for purposes of Wikipedia, which group of ten do we use. And consensus seems to support using 2000-2009, which is the methodology documented at WP:RY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy will help to make things clearer. If somebody says that the temperature is "in the 30s", they're not suggesting that it might be 40 degrees, and they certainly are allowing for the possibility that it is 30 degrees. "The thirties" (whether in reference to degrees, years, or anything else) comprises the range of numbers whose names begin with "thirty". The year "two thousand" is the first year of the "two-thousands" decade because it is the first year that starts with the words "two thousand". Because there was no year zero, the 201st (rank) decade began in 2001. But the 2000s (name) began with 2000. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That image is WAY too US-centric

The image here only really represents the US. It mentions the 11th September attacks in New York. What about the 7th July London Bombings? What about the Madrid bombings? It mentions Obama's Presidential victory. What about Gordon Brown's unelected Premiership in the UK? I could go on. This image should be removed, or at least altered to reflect WORLD events. Not US events. I would vote to remove it completely. Zestos (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Unschool 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one. Zestos (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

To subdivide articles about what took place in the '00s, make one about the USA and another for the world (or let's say Europe or China). Americans know for a fact the '00s spelled the end of "Pax Americana" or the so-called "American century" when the USA was the most strongest, while their debt increases and the military loses its' ability in Iraq. It is when obesity became the national hysteria of "everyone is overweight, look at the kids" and the downfall of neo-Conservative political power by the elections of Democrats to the house-and-senate in 2007, and Barack Obama as president the following year (2008). + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty ludicrous to assume that 9/11 was not a world event. bob rulz (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you anti-American? Not that I love America, but I respect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.28.176 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - too US-centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.104.17 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though the whole article is written from a US point of view.I totally agree. Geeky Freak (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of just complaining, please help us improve it. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

photo montage

This is one of the better photo montages, both in terms of overall presentation and choice of images.

• I would have thought a reference to Putin, or a resurgent Russia, would have been appropriate. Other important events could include the introduction of Euro notes and coins, the Congo war...any other ideas?
• The Spirit Rover was not a groundbreaking or prominent event of the decade. I would remove it (aside from the Moon Landing, Sputnik and the Space Shuttle I see little reason for astronomy related photos; face it, space exploration ain't in vogue anymore)
• As far as US Presidents go, Obama will be the face of the 2010s (even if he has one term). People many years from now will associate this decade with George Bush. Like Obama, Margaret got to lead her country in the last year of a decade, but we associate her as an icon of the 1980s, not 1970s.
• New Years celebration...not sure about this one.

Good pictures, though. Kransky (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Obama may be president well into the 2010s decade, yet he was more popularized in the 2007-2009 years, e.g. Obama-mania, as he was expected to clean up the mess Bush made.
• The spirit rover is gone. replaced to show an image of most hated president and administration in american history.
• Euro coins, and other events are going somewhere else.
• New Years celebration, Y2K, seems relevant. ZenCopain (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I still think that in 2050 Obama would be regarded as a figure of the 2010s, and Bush a figure of the 2000s. I don't think we should have pictures of two leaders from the same country. Kransky (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but Obama failed actually! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.130.136.199 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A photo from the Mumbai terror attack might be good to include, showing that terrorism is not only a "Western" problem. Artx (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The new photo montage is great. I didn't mean to be a pain by suggesting that the old one be removed, but this collection of images is much better than the old 'US-centric' one. Zestos (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be something space related in each of the images for the past few decades, and I think it would be nice to keep to that trend. The ISS, which although was sent to orbit in the 1998, played a huge role in manned spaceflight in the 2000's. I know manned spaceflight is not what is used to be, but I still think it was pretty important. Almost every single Space Shuttle and Soyuz mission that occurred in the 2000's were to the ISS. The ISS was also the destination for the first ever space tourist. Just my two cents. Nhoss2 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ossetia war

should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think so--HC 5555 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) yeah defintley it was also one of the main threats for a possible world war of this decade. --79.97.18.113 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page that seeks to pretend the first decade of the 21st Century did not start with the first year - 2001- is an absolute disgrace.

1.The 100th year of the 20th Century and last year of the 2nd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2000.

2.The 1st year of the first decade of the 21st Century and of the 3rd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2001 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘1′.

3.The 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st century will be 2010 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘10′.

4.The last day of the first decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium will definitely and indisputably be December 31st 2010.

There is an ongoing concerted and fraudulent effort by the BBC,Wikipedia and other major media players to deny these facts for cynical commercial branding and packaging purposes. This is an abuse of their position of information stream control domination.

Clear thinkers will ignore them and respect and express true and honest chronological facts and conventions.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and one more to go… This survey clearly shows it so:

http://management.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fmanagement.about.com%2Fb%2F2009%2F11%2F25%2Fwhen-does-the-decade-really-end.htm&poll_id=9160570248&poll=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Chronometer (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ALL The Wikipedia pages that seek to pretend the first decade of the 21st Century did not start with the first year - 2001- are an absolute disgrace.

1.The 100th year of the 20th Century and last year of the 2nd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2000.

2.The 1st year of the first decade of the 21st Century and of the 3rd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2001 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘1′.

3.The 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st century will be 2010 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘10′.

4.The last day of the first decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium will definitely and indisputably be December 31st 2010.

There is an ongoing concerted and fraudulent effort by the BBC,Wikipedia and other major media players to deny these facts and to fabricate an alternative myth for cynical commercial branding and packaging purposes. This is an abuse of their position of information stream control domination.

Clear thinkers everywhere will ignore them and respect and express true and honest chronological facts and conventions.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and one more to go… This survey clearly shows it so:

http://management.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fmanagement.about.com%2Fb%2F2009%2F11%2F25%2Fwhen-does-the-decade-really-end.htm&poll_id=9160570248&poll=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Chronometer (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Please, at least put your comments under a relevant section name. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2000s begins on 2001!

ALL The Wikipedia pages that seek to pretend the first decade of the 21st Century did not start with the first year - 2001- are an absolute disgrace.

1.The 100th year of the 20th Century and last year of the 2nd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2000.

2.The 1st year of the first decade of the 21st Century and of the 3rd Millennium was definitely and indisputably 2001 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘1′.

3.The 10th and last year of the first decade of the 21st century will be 2010 – obviously. The clue is in the number ‘10′.

4.The last day of the first decade of the 21st century and 3rd millennium will definitely and indisputably be December 31st 2010.

There is an ongoing concerted and fraudulent effort by the BBC,Wikipedia and other major media players to deny these facts for cynical commercial branding and packaging purposes. This is an abuse of their position of information stream control domination.

Clear thinkers will ignore them and respect and express true and honest chronological facts and conventions.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,and one more to go… This survey clearly shows it so:

http://management.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?linkback=http%3A%2F%2Fmanagement.about.com%2Fb%2F2009%2F11%2F25%2Fwhen-does-the-decade-really-end.htm&poll_id=9160570248&poll=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Chronometer (talk • contribs) 06:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No. 2000 = first year. 2001 = second year. 2002 = third year. 2003 = fourth year. 2004 = fifth year. 2005 = sixth year. 2006 = seventh year. 2007 = eighth year. 2008 = ninth year. 2009 = tenth year. It's stated below that 2000 was in the 20th century, which is true, but irrelevant. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

All the decades, centuries and milleniums begins on 1 and are finished on 0.

The first decade was from the 1st year to the 10th year... and that's why this decade is 2001-2010 (both included).

English is not my first language, so I got limitations to speak fluently. Sorry about that.--HC 5555 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We understand that the millenium and the century began in 2001, but it does not correspond with the decade. To wit: Would you say that the year "1990" was part of the 1980s? We here do not think so, and thus decades begin and end differently than do centuries.Unschool 09:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

that is officially true but over time, it has turned into 2000-2009 is the decade both included, due to its popularity it is now, the well known way of seeing a decade and is used now in official cases such as wikipedia, as of course for example how could you call the 80's the 80's if its last year is 1990, which has nothing to do with 1980s, as they seem like two different decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanmullen09 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What we "think" does not matter here. Can someone please cite an established secondary source if they want to change it, either way. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How can it apply to centuries but not to decades?? The Gregorian Calendar has no "year zero," which means the first decade has no "year zero." so the first decade comprised years 1 thru 10. If you bow to the ignorance that leads to decades being defined by the first 1 or 2 digits, somewhere along the way you have to account for a 9-year "decade." The original comment is absolutely correct. All decades, centuries, and millenia begin on the 1, not the zero. It's a matter of historical and mathematical accuracy. Not even mathematical, really. Simple counting. Kdietz (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that the second millenium is from 2001-3000; but the 2000's are from 2000-2999. The millenium terminology refers to the Gregorian Calendar, while the term 2000's refers to the numerical value. Likewise, the first decade of the second millenium is from 2001-2010; but the 2000's (when referring to just the last two digits) refers to 2000-2009. Subtle difference in the terminology. At least, that has always been my understanding. If someone can locate a reliable source to clear it up one way or the other, that would help. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Appellations like "the 80's" are not documented in any official way, as far as I know. They are cultural slang, and are not appropriate in these articles. Furthermore, they create confusion when used in the same context as "20th Century" or "third millennium," since they don't follow the same convention, so it's better to avoid them altogether in reference material. Perhaps a separate article explaining the difference would be appropriate. But within a "structure" of documentation such as Wikipedia is trying to build, millennia, centuries, and decades should all follow the same rules, for clarity's sake.Kdietz (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The difference is explained in WP:RY. Centuries and millennia are designated by ordinal numbers, whereas decades have nominal numbers. Ordinal and nominal designations do not have to be equivalent or comparable. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To put it another way, suppose you want to know who's on first base at a baseball game. You see that a guy named Elmer Eleven (nominal number) is on first (ordinal number) base. This is an entirely possible scenario; names and ranks can have little or nothing to do with one another. As nominal numbers have no numeric value, they can't be mathematically flawed (or mathematically sound), and so they can be set merely by the habits and customs of ordinary speech. And if I say, "Beginning in the late 1970s...", you probably don't instantly think of 1980, but rather of something like 1977-1979. If there's any ambiguity, I think, it's not about where the specific bounds of a decade lie, but rather about whether such bounds exist at all. For instance, "The Sixties" connotes social and political trends that aren't strictly delimited either by 1960 and 1969 or by 1961 and 1970. But even so, the numerically-written "1960s" does not exactly suggest 1970--or, at least, it suggests 1960 far more than 1970. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea, for the reasons I explained earlier. There is no citation on the WP:RY as to where this idea came from. Is it an official policy, or something a Wikipedia editor dreamed up?Kdietz (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RY is a style guideline. I generally don't emphasize the policy/guideline distinction unless one clearly clashes with the other (in which case the policy would take precedence). Both policies and guidelines can be challenged, but (up until today, anyway) that particular part of that particular guideline hasn't been contested. To be completely honest, I drafted a lot of that page, including the section in question. But if one wants a source, one needn't look any further than a dictionary. And consider this entry, which points out that "sixties" indicates 60-69 in general. If a parent asks their child's teacher what the child's average grade is, the teacher might say, "I don't recall precisely, but I know it's not too good--it's definitely somewhere in the 60's." The teacher would not use this phrasing when the child's average is 70%, but would do so if the average turned out to be 60%. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The year zero argument works well for decades. First of all decades should correspond to centuries. It doesn't make sense that a new century starts a year after a new decade. Also by saying the decade goes from **00-**09 then you're saying the very first decade only had 9 years, which is totally illogical! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.34.119.12 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

no it has ten years see?

• year 1 --- 2000
• year 2 --- 2001
• year 3 --- 2002
• year 4 --- 2003
• year 5 --- 2004
• year 6 --- 2005
• year 7 --- 2006
• year 8 --- 2007
• year 9 --- 2008
• year 10 --- 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.232.247 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The first decade having only 9 years (and by extension the first century having only 99, and so on) is no less logical than the idea that the 00s include 2010 but not 2000. Etherjammer (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A decade, by definition, consists of 10 years. A century, by definition, consists of 100 years. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposer of this topic is correct, the main page is WRONG. The popular media, as in 1899 and 1999 made the ignorant decision that 31st December was the end of that period. Therefore the masses believe what they have read, and ignorances gains pace. You do not finish a 100 metre race after completing the 99th metre, only when you pass the line marking the end of the hundredth metre. Similarly with a century or a decade - the last century ended on 31st December 2000.

There was no year zero, there would have been 1BC then it became 1AD. This is explained in Wikipedia under [Astonomical Calendars] Also see [Decade] and [Century].

Some references will follow

Tony, Manchester, UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.65.240 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This kind of rubbish is why people don't bother getting involved editing Wikipedia any more, because of ceaseless and interminable pedantry. We can all split hairs till the cows come home, but if you ask the average person what decade any year ending in zero is in, they're almost certain to tell you it's the decade for the number preceding the zero in the tens column. 1960, in the 1960s. It may be factually incorrect, but it makes more common sense than putting it in the 50s. I will strongly resist any attempt to change the current interpretation. EddieBernard (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That is true and is what is stated on the articles for centuries (e.g., 20th century: "The Twentieth Century of the Common Era began on January 1, 1901 and ended on December 31, 2000. according to the Gregorian calendar, (2000 was the first century leap year since 1600)."), but it doesn't mean this article is incorrect. The decade referred to went from 2000 (1st year) to 2009 (10th year). The first year of the decade was in the 20th century, not the 21st, but it's still in the 2000-2009 decade (call it what you like). --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

well i think wikipedia has it right, that the 2000's decade is 2000-2009, but the 1st decade of the 21st century is 2001-2010. to be honest with you i think the argument gets so ridiculous sometimes that i might vote to make the 5th year of each decade the start of the decade lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.97.78 (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Coincident dates

Ref.: The Counting of Years
After reading all the above conversations as well as several Wikipedia articles such as Millennium, Decade, etc., I'm of the opinion that it is okay to use the "cardinal" system that this article uses, which shows the zero years as the beginning of decades. However, I do feel that this so-called "rubbish" argument is important enough to a lot of people, so there is a need for information about "ordinal" counting to be added to the lede. This can be done by a brief statement or by footnote, but it definitely IS a requirement, which adds notability to this article and clarity for readers of this article.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  10:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Noughties

The sentence on the Noughties still has no source that supports the statement that the name is prevalent, only examples of use. If the sources are reduced to those that suggest the usage is prevalent, or the sentence is reduced to the same status as the other names (with the references intact), then it might be acceptable. I've reverted enough times since 9:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC), that I cannot think of a correction which would not be a revert and violate the letter of WP:3RR, even though I'm trying to find a sourced version of the sentence which gives proper value to the name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try and find these references but I notice that you are in the US Arthur. IMHO the usage in Britain is prevalent enough for inclusion on this page - like I've mentioned on your personal talk page the word has been included in the OED (was in by 2003: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3166815.stm) and none of the other collective nouns for the decade have as yet been added. There is even a TV show running right now on the BBC called "The Noughties...was that it". http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00p9394 The word is used daily in the UK both on the media and by ordinary people - you can't get more prevalent than that! Can't justify it for other English speaking territories for obvious reasons but I will soon write this up from a UK perspective at least. Here an example from the Daily Telegraph (not an organ used to using words which are not part of the language (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/6466684/Top-100-defining-cultural-moments-of-the-00s-noughties.html). Here's the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jan/02/noughtiessofarthebook). Ah aparently it's in the South African edition of the Oxford english dictinary fr kids too: (http://www.oxford.co.za/pls/cms/oup.show_pub?p_isbn=0199112215). Come on Arthur! I know you are rightly strict fellow - but this word IS common parlance now, at least outside of the USA!--Mapmark (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please restore the {{disputed-inline}} tag until a source can be located? Perhaps {{disputed-inline|Noughties}}, as I'm not happy with my intitial decision to refer only to Ireland. Or perhaps a {{cn}} tag on the word "prevalent"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like it, but the term 'Noughties' is the most common name for this decade here in the UK. I don't think that it sounds serious enough for a decade that has been defined by war and economic recession. "The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, commonly known as 9/11, occured early in the Noughties". My point is this - Even though it is an inappropriate name for the decade, it IS the most commonly accepted name here in the UK. I think that Mapmark's sources are enough to show this to be the case. Zestos (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. It appears that Mapmark added some references after I made that comment, or I missed them. Still, it resembles WP:SYNthesis to state that it's prevalent without quoting someone. Just noting it's commonly used in the media without explanation, doesn't strike me as enough. If OED (and the South African edition of OED for kids) includes it without noting preferred synonyms, that strikes me as a usable reference. The "present" (or at least, the last time I read the paragraph, which is shortly before my previous comment), all we had was a collection of uses or proposals for use, such as is noted in the other names in the section. I can't find an {{unsourced-inline}} or {{unsourced-word}} tag to place on "prevalent", but I would like such a tag to be in place until we add appropriate sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the people here could chime in at wikt:noughties and its discussion page, as well? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice re-write someone has done on the 'Names of the decade' section. Think that sums it up very clearly without any POV.--Mapmark (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mapmark - I am asking for consensus to rewrite the section again, can you provide some feedback? Artx (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Only one of the 9 refereneces for "Noughties" (the second Australian) actually says it's generally used. Even in that one, it uses "Naughties", and only stated "according to David, ....", without going in to David's credentials. One of the UK references does quote a reliable source in stating that the BBC started using it in 2000. However, [18] (Oxford blog) actually uses it is one among many, and doesn't say it's generally used. The other references just use it as if it were common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be returning a number of the "Alternate names" to this article. I believe that by virtue of the section "Names of the Decade", and its introduction "Unlike previous decades, the 2000s never attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world." that these are ALL RELEVANT. Any removal of them following their return will see a request for consensus, and further removal will constitute vandalism unless an appropriate argument is made. Artx (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am agreing with this excpt decade from hell. that one is like writed by a litle children who does know no history. 70.153.208.164 (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

ATTN: Arthur Rubin - these citations are all relevant to show "usage" in the media and are valid. Artx (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did this term come from? It must be a U.K. term, because I live in the U.S. and have never heard of it. I don't think the article should state that this is a widely used term. All sources are from the U.K. Is there a way to verify the usage, or maybe mention that the term is used in the U.K. or among people of British descent? A quick search of the term on Yahoo shows that all the links are either from the U.K. or (a couple) from Australia. That doesn't sound like "widely known as" to me. Any editors from the U.K. want to discuss this? It seems that two editors are currently in an edit war of some sort over this. There should be no problem with including the term, perhaps writing 'known in the U.K. and Australia as the Noughties', or something like that. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(to Artx) As I've pointed out many times, the citations are examples of usage in the media, with two or three exceptions, and none of those exceptions state that it's commonly used.

(to CreativeSoul7981) It seems to have been preemptively originated by the BBC in late 1999. They made another attempt in late 2009 for 2010s, but there's no evidence that that one has appeared other than in the BBC, even though it keeps appearing in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I first heard this term in 1999 or thereabouts. It was floated as a name for the forthcoming decade based on, I believe, its use during the 1900s. However, I don't think it ever caught on and wasn't frequently used from my experience. Any statement on it being "widely known" requires a good cite that actually states this, and preferably more than one from different countries. Collecting a few example uses, and thereafter declaring that as evidence of being widely known is original synthesis and not good enough. Frankly, if it really was "widely known" we wouldn't need either the cites or this discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Names of the decade -sardonic on not

People seem to think that it is OK to hack this section around without fair reflection.

The latest saw the complete removal of a word which has general parlance, justifying it with the argument that "the noughties" it is only used "sardonically". I'm afraid this is not a fair judgement of the situation in Britain at least.

The word may have arisen from this field but it is now used throughout the country, by serious newspapers, broadcasters and people in the street.

Whilst I accept that the "I-decade" may not be generally used, the collective noun for this decade is now "The Noughties" in the UK at least and people should be wary of deleting accurate, well sourced and proven details.

Dictionary meaning of Sardonic sardonic [sɑːˈdɒnɪk] adj characterized by irony, mockery, or derision

This is NOT how the word is now used. I have restored the delete until a better revision is prepared.

Many thanks,--Mapmark (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search for "in the noughties" to see if the term is used with serious intent, rather than in popular media which finds it ironic that the collective name of the decade sounds like "naughties".

While the number of references (3.4 million) appears to be mostly for pop or social culture articles, there are some more serious articles which have adopted this term. They are, however, in the minority.

I am happy for a reference to the noughties to be retained, but it should not be specified that it is in common usage.

To change the subject, do we know if newsreaders call 2003 "two thousand and three" or "twenty oh three"? Kransky (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, although I (an American) had never even heard the term "noughties" until I got involved with this article, the word does have a fair amount of hits on Google Scholar. I wouldn't say that it's in "common usage", but it does seem to be used by serious writers in serious publications. So I basically agree--mention it, but don't overstate it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte has made a very good point here, and I for one am happy that the word 'Noughties' is not 'overstated' but in the version currently visible it seems like a perfectly fair and balanced representation of what is needed.

Obviously we cannot (and do not wish to) cite people we hear speaking in the street or on the phone, but for this discussion only, may I respectfully add that in the UK, I for one have heard many ordinary people - friends, family - even old ladies I'm not aquatinted with - use the term 'Noughties' as the collective noun for this decade in a manner which is not intended as 'sardonic' - whether they have picked it up from the media (who may have intended its use in that manner) or not.

If you are in the US and still do not see this, I urge you to ring up a few Brits and start talking with them about the decade and see what they THEY call it!

I do find it just a little incongruous (and possibly slightly against the Wiki spirit) that a few Non-US based Wikipedians are occasionally forced to justify these things just because a word or idea has not yet found common parlance in North America. I'm guessing that there are many words used on Wikipedia which are certainly not in common usage anywhere outside the US? I'm also guessing most of these are rarely challenged on here? Please please do bear in mind that most Brits seem to fully comprehend that the English language is no longer 'theirs' and is constantly evolving (in fact many of us celebrate that and love to hear how the language is changing - and revel in the way that is used differently and inventively by non British people). We take it on trust that this open-mindedness extends in all directions.

Just because a word has become accepted in the UK (and I believe from what I have read here, also in Australia) - but not in the US, should therefore surely not mean we have to argue the toss over every nuance and reference. Besides, is not the Oxford English Dictionary acceptable enough now as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

Even if it is the case that a certain word or expression is not widespread in the US, surely we can all benefit from allowing it's use on Wikipedia (with the apposite explanation of regional variations) wherever appropriate?

What was motivating me and I guess others in wanting to include this expression, was the task of making Wikipedia the comprehensive and reliable source of information that most of us wish it to be for everyone. Surely this is the acid test of what should be included or not?--Mapmark (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the term being included here, although I am unfamiliar with it, clearly others have used and it like several other terms should remain...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mapmark, you appear to be missing the point. My concern is with the undue weight of an informal term. I don't believe it is an issue of regionalism (btw, I am not American, I am Australian - and the term is not used here without a wry smile or without quotes). Could you cite me a speech in which Tony Blair uses this word? Could you explain why there are only 952 references to "noughties" on gov.uk websites (most of which are used in an informal sense), but 13,500 references to "nineties"?

I am happy with there to be a reference to noughties, but let's not get overboard. Kransky (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference for noughties from yesterdays Slate.com The Uh Ohs...Modernist (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

With Kransky, whose instinct on this matter is correct.SYNTHing a bunch of references grabbed from google to declare a trend is obviously a no no, but so too is hovering about waiting to grab for the first blog that says what you wanna say in the article. That's NOT what wikipedia is for. If it becomes the main name, then it will be highly verifiable [which blogs are not]. I doubt anyway that most "Brits" had heard of the term until a few weeks ago. It's a term pushed by certain quarters in the Beeb, and although it spread to their London journo drinking buddies, that only started recently. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's always used sardonically, but there is still no evidence presented that is is commonly used outside of the media quoted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Just because "the Naughties" (the absolute most retarded name I've heard for the decade) is used in England doesn't mean its used everywhere else. Wikipedia is not limited to the UK, I personally have never heard anyone here in the US call it "the Naughties." --70.176.184.44 (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language references

I notice that a large number of references in the Economics section are in Spanish. Is this appropriate for the English-language version of wikipedia? Aebrett (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

While it is obviously better to have English-language references, because anyone who's reading the article will then be able to read the source, there's nothing wrong with references in other languages. --AdamSommerton (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense

This is basically a copy-editing issue, but it's one that pervades the entire article. Even within single sentences, the tense freely alternates among present, past, present perfect, and/or past perfect. The necessity of perfect tenses will depend on context, but the overall preference for past-tense vs. present-tense ought to be made clear. I don't know which one is best; recent year articles (e.g., 2008, 2009) go with present tense for everything, but then again, those year articles are almost entirely in timeline format, and the timeline style may or may not be best for a time-related article, such as this, that contains more regular prose. In any case, some consensus ought to be reached, and the tense standardized, as it's rather irritating to read lines like, "A does X until B did Y." Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at this writing guide if you are having issues with tense: http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/usetense.html Artx (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

this article mentioned in the media

this wikipedia article is mentioned on the front page of 12/27/2009 Times Union (Albany, NY)

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=882419 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.251.195 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the top of the talk page via the Press template. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty cool. Also, I can't help but appreciate the irony that according to some discussions on notability this brief mention would get the Wikipedia article on the 2000s its own Wikipedia article: 2000s (Wikipedia article). Not trying to make a statement or anything (except maybe that policies need to be interpreted case-by-case). Just think it's funny. Qwerty0 (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What to put in photo montage

I'll gladly make a photo montage of the 2000s decade for us all, but I'm going to need help deciding on what to put in it.

• September 11 attacks - definetly.
• Y2K - seems appropriate; it was very big at the time.
• War on Terror - seems appropriate.

I'll probably make it out of pics already in the Commons, as to avoid the copyright mumbo-jumbo. --SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of War on Terror how about the Iraq War. Also some other pretty critical events or things of the decade were the 2008 Financial Crisis, Beijing Olympics, Live Earth, the 2004 Tsunami, the Election of Barrack Obama, Spirit and Opportunity landing on Mars, Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the Isreal-Lebanon War. Those are some biggies, some other big events like Hurricane Katrina, South Ossetia War, Death of Pope John Paul 2, Death of Michael Jackson were major but probably are either best shown in montages of other decades, or though they were big new stories their major consequences were mostly limited to a certain area and or did not have super long lasting effects on many people around the world. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The death of Michael Jackson was moderately important for 2009, but it hardly defined the 2000s. More people mourned Churchill's passing in 1965, but you can hardly say that event represented the 1960s. Y2K was also shown to be a non-event.

In general I am against including people as famous if they just died. If the death was sudden and significant (JFK, Diana and Saddat come to mind) then it makes sense, but the influence of Michael Jackson, Pope John Paul II etc belong in earlier decades. Kransky (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Kransky basically has expressed all that I have to say on this. The only significant single death of the entire decade was Benazir Bhutto's in my opinion, Saddam's excecution was pretty big too though. --156.34.66.156 (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be too US-centric, so we should include 9/11 Iraq War/War on Terror (which one?) and possibly the election of Barack Obama. But that's it for directly related US topics. I'm also thinking the Gaza War or the 2006 Lebanon War and maybe the 2008 South Ossetia war. And for something other than war and military conflicts, definetly the Boxing Day tsunami - that was a biggie. I agree with most of Kuzwa's things. --SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 23:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kuzwa/2000smontage - I added some images on this page that you could use. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

i am likeing what user:kransky has said. if persons who die in 2000s were famus for what they are doing before in earlier decade then not puting them in here is best. but i would say this is true except for very very speceial case like michael jackson because millons and millons of people are wanting to go to his burying. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictures if any relating to Michael Jackson would probably serve better on the 1980's page. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I made the montage; but I'm guessing there is going to be controversy lol. One thing I left out was the Gaza War/Israel-Lebanon War (2006). Damn. --SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 00:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

THE CENTURIAN FALLACY:

It had been the biggest fallacy to think that the 21st Century started on 1st Jan. 2000. In fact the 20th century ended on 31st Dec. 2000 and the new 21st Century started on 1st Jan. 2001. Century means a period of 100 years starting from year 1 and ends with the 100th year i.e. the year 2000 in the 20th century.

This point has been discussed and accepted universally by all the intellectuals however once again the disciples of the old thoughts have come up with an idea that the 1st decade of the 21st Century has ended on 31st Dec. 2009. It is a matter of common understanding that the 1st day of the year for the current century had been 1st Jan 2001 and counting ten years from that day gives 31st Dec. 2010 and not 31st Dec. 2009.

One fails to understand why media has been encouraging the obsolete thoughts without paying attention to generally accepted and scientific principle of periodic calculations. The reason that strikes to us is that either the media is not competent enough to count the days and years. Whatever may be the actual reason either incompetency or lack of knowledge one thing is certain the media has been successful in taking the best advantage (disadvantage) of the public euphoria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timirgyani (talk • contribs) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You would be correct if this article were called, "The First Full Decade of the 21st Century". But that's not the name of the article. And the wording at the beginning of the page is deliberate: The 21st century and third millennium began in this decade, but they did not begin with it. This has already been discussed before and again. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I came flying in here with the same thought, but I think the above paragraph explains the article's purpose well. Perhaps if this page is archived in the future, a "sticky" at the top of the talk page will help clarify for those of us who are quick to "correct" everyone else? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_talk 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If needed, we could always add an {{FAQ}} box to the top of the talk page to explain issues such as this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dale Earnhardt

this section should mention the passing of dale earnhardt in february, 2001. his passing turned into a huge story, surprising mainstream media. it deserves mentioning in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbrackett (talk • contribs) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Which section is "this section"? Anyway, maybe, since there's a Death of Dale Earnhardt article. But was this noticed much around the world, like the death of Michael Jackson, or was the "mainstream" media attention primarily domestic (U.S.)? If the latter, I'd be hesitant to add it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of this person, and even if I had, there are many many other much more famous people whose deaths are not going to be found here. As yourself - if there are 500 people as famous as Dale, are we going to list them here.

But how should we handle deaths? Why should Michael Jackson's death be reported, and not Ronald Reagan's? Kransky (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i'm new here. i was talking about section 7.4. while i realize that there is an article on the death of dale earnhardt, i think his death should be included in a recap of the decade. his death not only impacted many of his fans (worldwide) on an emotional level equal to michael jackson, but any figure whose funeral was carried on cnn should be mentioned when listing important dates from a given decade--especially a sports figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.203.140 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be consistent, I am against listing the deaths of persons unless the death itself was significant. I would not list Reagan or Jackson. I probably would not include Pope John Paul II. Until I googled his name I had no idea who this dale earnhardt is, and I doubt your claim that his death was mourned worldwide (this might be hard for some to believe, but NASCAR has almost zilch following outside the fifty states of the union). I can say with absolute certainty his life and death does not have the weight that justify its reporting here. Kransky (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really care for NASCAR, but a lot of American's would see it appropriate to have his death in the article, along with Pope John Paul. I've seen "less or equally famous" people's deaths on other decade pages (some of who were only famous in the UK or other countries). Seems kind of unfair for that to be true... --70.176.184.44 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we add bands too to the "people" section

Someone added the Black Eyed Peas earlier to the "people" section. I myself think that this section should only contain notable individuals. Any ideas? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO we should only list individuals like Bono not bands like U2 there, likewise in sports we can list Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter but not PGA tour, NY Yankees etc...Modernist (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You raise a good question. Are we just going to write a long list of people who were famous in the 2000s. If so, what use this is this going to bring us? (except arguments over whether, say, Angela Merkel should be in it and not Fifty Cent). It may be better to list the most prominent politicians and musicians separately.

My recommendation would be to read a few "top ten" lists (that cover all genres over the world), and select only those artists who consistently were best sellers. And also a few artists nominated as "band/musician of the decade" by the most established magazines and critics

Just remember that we do not remember The Archies as being the trendsetter of the 1960s ahead of the Beatles or the Stones (despite Sugar Sugar being the most popular single of 1969). Kransky (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The people section

This section appears in all other decade articles in Wikipedia and I do not see a valid reason for it should not appear here. In fact, if it should be removed from this article it should be removed from all articles for the same reason. For the same reason we could remove the timeline section because one could argue what were the most prominent events of the decade as well. For now it should stay and we could keep on discussing this matter here.

If anybody can refer me to the best "top ten" lists of each field I'll modify the section appropriately. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the lists of persons should be removed from all the other articles. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY, WP:NOTYELLOW and WP:INFO Kransky (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing should be removed, on the contrary the section should be added here. Consensus so far is in favor of those sections. These pages reflect consensus, and there are also variations when it comes to both guidelines and policies. WP:UCS indicates lists of prominent people during each human era makes sense, common sense and also makes for important conveyance of information, and sociological significance, wikipedia is what we build...Modernist (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore I redid this section and re-added it. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually there isn't consensus because at least one person opposes it (moi). But I am not intending to stonewall debate - rather I would prefer to convince you there are some vulnerabilities with this list.

Why is Emperor Akihito on the list when he plays almost no role in Japanese politics? I would have said Queen Elizabeth II has played a more prominent role in the many countries that are in the Commonwealth. Why is Bill Clinton there but not Kofi Annan? Were Australian and Canadian leaders really that influential? As for the choice of musicians, I would question why Nelly Furtado, Taylor Swift or Norah Jones are there - were they major sellers, or did they innovate a new style? Why are we limiting sports figures to a few figures. Why not a list of business persons, criminals or other celebrities?

My point is, if you are going to go down this path, at least develop some objective criteria, rather than arbitarily nominate persons. Kransky (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

i am agreing with User:Kransky. Untill we are decideing together which is the reason for each name listing in this secton this secton must better be taken away. if we only let people add what they want it is very crazy. i say we take away this secton and ask everyone to help to decideing what we are thinking is belonging in here.

if we do not decide on what User:Kransky calls CRITERIA then everytime someone is ading a new name we must talk if we are wanting to keep it. but if we have CRITERIA then all can see who is belonging and who is not belonging. maybe sometimes we are still going to be not agreing but most times we will know. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

i am starting talk at botom of this page for talking about criteria. please say your ideas down there. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles

Does anybody support references to the Beatles in this article?. One keen contributor really wants to mention a certain album was the top seller of the decade. My view is that top sellers are not the most important indicators of notability - and I am certain there are other top ten lists that would indicate other artists. Let the article focus on events that took place in this decade, methinks. Comments? Kransky (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My version noted that Eminem and the Beatles were the top-sellers of the decade (and the source for that statement emphasized these #1 and #2 spots), but specific albums are probably too much detail. I support a general reference to the Beatles--most bands don't remain this popular 40 years after they disband--but mentioning specific albums could be overstating the point. (Disclosure: A quick browse of my recent edits might suggest--correctly--that I have a particular interest in this band. However, it is Rolling Stone's interest in Eminem and the Beatles, and not my own interest in the latter, on which I based the earlier version of that passage.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for consensus concerning: Names of the decade

I have been asked to raise this again, although currently I am ok with the section as it is...Modernist (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors,

Due to the contentious nature of the subject I am attempting to gain consensus as related to the wording and arrangement of this section. I hope to argue that a more broadly based outline including an introductory statement that helps provide the tone, and commentary that provides a variety of view points is of paramount importance to this subject.

Artx (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Names of the decade

- Stating that no consensus is yet in place

Unlike previous decades, the 2000s have not yet attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world..

- Starting the informational section of this section with a reference to the BBC Noughties article is appropriate as it is one of the first verifiable citation calling the 2000s the Noughties - Additional citation material is being generated quite rapidly, as such if we need to remove or add citations that more appropriatly reflect document guidelines this can be done.

On January 1, 2000 The BBC listed "The Noughties" (derived from "nought", a word used for zero in many English-speaking countries) as potential moniker for the new decade. Since then the term "The Noughties" has achieved common usage by the media in Ireland , Australia , and the United Kingdom . In addition, some usage in Canada and in the United States of America has appeared. Non English language countries such as Thiland, and Germany also have cited usage. The New Oxford Dictionary of English added the term in 2003 (Published, August 2003) following a multi year review of its usage. Quoting an editor: "New words are spread worldwide by the media.." and thus bears credence to the usage of these sources (media outlets) as being mirrors to our society.

- This section stands as citations are in place, and works to further the introductory statement.

Others advocate the term "The Aughts", which was widely used at the beginning of the previous century, sometimes even combining it with "Naught" to put a linguistic twist on the time period, such as "The Naught Aughts", "The Naughts", "The Aughts","The Naughty Aughties" or the "Warring Naughts". Slate Magazine puts another humorous twist on the "00s" as the "Uh-Ohs" in reference to our inability to come up with a name. An alternate designation in some pop literature is "The First Decade", with each first letter capitalized. Previous decades that begin a new century have generally been referred to as "The Hundreds", for example "The Nineteen-Hundreds".

- Consensus was gained on the Time Magazine article being referenced. It provides a list of potential non numerical descriptors, and regardless of recentism presents a view of events that are currently common knowledge. Arguements were made stating that inclusion of this may put a western slant on this article, however, alternate language WIKI articles are avaliable for presentation of issues relevant to other cultural linguistic groups.

In America, Time Magazine has suggested that it may come to be know as the "Decade from Hell", "the Reckoning", "Decade of Broken Dreams", or the "Lost Decade", in response to the large number of human tragedies and natural disasters that currently inhabit our shared cultural psyche (e.g. 9/11/2001, War in Iraq, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, Hurricane Katrina, Economic Collapse). Although these proposed names do not specifically identify the decade in any numerical fashion they may act as greater overall descriptors for this time period.

- A nice way to close the section using the numerical, and short form of the written date range

Orthographically, the decade can be written as "2000s" or "'00s". This can be read as "two-thousands" and thus simply refer to the decade as "the year two-thousands" or "the Y2Ks"...

Artx (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I do think the Time and Slate articles should be included or rather restored...Modernist (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, http://blog.oup.com/2007/12/aught/ specifically says that "Noughties" has not achieved common usage. If you're going to use a reference, at least quote it correctly. Furthermore, the New Oxford Dictionary including the word does not imply that it's in common usage; it at most implies that it's an accepted usage. Furthermore, a few added references say that it's used by some media or that it's attempted to have been introduced by some media, rather than that it is commonly used. In fact, I see no sources (yet) which explicitly state that it's commonly used, even by the media, and some which say it is not commonly used.

I'd have to say it should be demoted to a suggested name, and only the references which suggest it or note that it is suggested by included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that The article in the Oxford University Press doesn't specifically state that the word is in "common use" but as "frequently appearing". You will notice that in the proposed rewrite, I have removed the statement that "The Noughties" are in common use by the "population", but have left that it is used by "the media", and have included numerous sourced articles for verification of its "usage".

I would ask how for suggestion on how to copy edit the proposed section rewrite demoting it to a suggested name. Artx (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but it feels like we are getting our knickers in a monumental twist here! The collective noun "noughties" is not simply the most common word used by British media (and I understand in other English-speaking countries outside the US like Ireland, Australia and South Africa) but it is in fact now the ONLY word used to describe the decade by said media. There are countless references in every serious tabloid paper and it is in daily use by all broadcast media including BBC Radio 4 and The World Service. It strikes me as a relatively pointless exercise trying to justify its everyday use by people in the street because there is no way that the word be so universally used (by the media) if it was not throughly understood, and, as importantly, by it's ubiquitous daily use (built up enormously during 2009 for obvious reasons) it has become a word that has been adopted in the UK in everyday language. I need to check the wiki rules (unless anyone here can quickly remind us) but how much proof do you need? (Apocryphally speaking) the majority of people in Britain who need to find a collective noun for this decade use "the noughties". It's that simple. Accept it! I have heard it myself falling unsolicited from the mouths of people all over the country from Southampton to Manchester, London to Glasgow.... so please can we move on? I urge you to either phone a few British friends and do your own straw poll or accept the myriad of references online. (In fact as we type there is progamme going on tonight called "Class of the Noughties" (BlissTV). There were over dozen mentions of the word in a copy of the Guardian I saw over Christmas, I have a journalist friend who works for Radio 4 & BBC News24 who says the word on air everytime he refers to the decade....I mean come on guys what's the big problem??????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmark (talk • contribs) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If that statement — even the statement that "noughties" is the most common word used by British media — were true, surely, somebody would have said that. So far, not a single reference presented here has said that, even including the personal blogs which have been added. Even the OED blog says "frequently appearing", not most commonly appearing. Our rules against original research are being stretched even by the current statement that it's commonly used by British media, as we're just pointing to examples of it being used by British media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found tons of sources that contain the word "noughties". Some of these are scholarly publications. Considering this, there should be a source that concludes that "noughties" is a common, or at least an acceptable, term. However, I've yet to find such a source--one that doesn't simply contain the word, but rather takes it as its subject and notes its legitimacy or popularity. We can't just look at a bunch of primary sources and synthesize our findings into the conclusion that any word is particularly common; that would be a blatant violation of both WP:SYN and WP:PSTS. I admit that we may, indeed, be "getting our knickers in a monumental twist", but we're doing so in order to write this encyclopedia in...well, an encyclopedic manner. It appears to be almost certainly true that "noughties" is a common and an acceptable term amongst many people. But if the truth isn't verifiable (apart from our own, original discovery of the truth), it cannot be stated in an encyclopedic fashion. So, while I share some of Mapmark's sentiments, I ultimately agree with Arthur Rubin on this matter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I will be "restoring" the introductory statement, as it is obvious from this debate that no consensus is yet in place.

Unlike previous decades, the 2000s have not yet attained a universally accepted name in the English-speaking world..

Artx (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This source that you provided probably would, in my opinion, justify at least a brief note that "noughties" is relatively popular in the UK. Given that this is the English-language Wikipedia, it would seem reasonable for it to take note of language habits in England (and in the UK in general). The challenge would be to write about the "noughties" in proportion to the way that the source talks about the term. It's not the main point of the source, but the source does note on more than one occasion that people have found some amusing solutions--the "cute" aughts and the "entertain[ing]" noughties--to the naming problem. Perhaps a general note about this amusement, noting the relative popularity of "noughties" in the UK, would be justified by that source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Relatively popular is a very conservative description - in the UK, as well as Ireland and Australia by all accounts, "The Noughties" can be used unambiguously and without justification. No other term can, except of course "this decade" which is no longer usable. The difficulty is finding citations to back this up: you're asking for a source that specifically notes the popularity of the term, whereas the real test of whether it's in common usage is that the term doesn't need to be defined, noted, or otherwise drawn attention to. DanPope (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its fine as it is, but I'm not against it being rewritten. I agree with Cosmic Latte about the popularity of the term 'Noughties' in the UK. Zestos (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I live in the UK, and I've never heard anyone say "naughties" or "noughties" (you can't hear the difference) seriously except the BBC and a few recently influenced London media sources. The decade still is almost as nameless here as it is elsewhere. And in fact this is precisely what the commentary sources discussed above say. Please remember everyone that quoting different sources that use the term to justify a different assertion is WP:SYNTH. We can cite commentary however. Some users here seem to be waiting around for sources to say exactly what they already want them to say ... that's not the spirit of wikipedia. It'd probably be best to leave it as it is and revisit the matter after a decent period of time. Atm everything else is a bit crystal ballish, and that shouldn't be good enough even if some blog or yahoo article can be found discussing it already. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

New citation Decade dilemma - whatever to name it? being added to the introductory statement, supporting the no consensus argument. Artx (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated citation Complete Definition of "noughties" derived from "nought"... Artx (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit / Restored State Magazine citation Name That Decade for the Uh-Ohs. Artx (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we should use "Noughties". It's the only term that's used by a major source (BBC), and it's not UK-specific anymore, it's starting to catch on in America and Canada.

It's the best we got. DriveMySol (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Being broadcast tonight on BBC 2; New citation [11] as I said above and it remains unchallenged here: there is no way one of the worlds most widely respected broadcasters would utilise the word so often if it was not universally understood. And also unanswered is my point above that by its very ubiquitous use in all the main media it has become part of the language. --Mapmark (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

there is no way one of the worlds most widely respected broadcasters would utilise the word so often if it was not universally understood.

That's not even vaguely true. They frequently do utilise words and concepts few outside London journalistese would understand. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? It is clear that everyone involved in this discussion agrees that "The Noughties" is being used (like it or not) by certain segments of the English-speaking population to describe the preceding decade (2000s, 00s, Uh-Ohs, etc.). As such can we agree to include the specific verbiage I presented at the top of this section as related to "The Noughties" with the addition of some caveats? It should be noted that my rewrite does not state anywhere that it is the "Only" name but that is is one of many... Artx (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to read through the whole discussion right now. I'll have to do this later tonight. But I haven't heard any of these strange terms like "The Noughties". I have heard the news channels reporting the Twenty Tens as the new decade so as not to confuse with the Ten's (meaning 1910s). There are still some people alive from that decade in the twentieth century.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)