Talk:1990s

Michael Jackson believe we still experience the 1990s in some ways because of similar music genres (definitive 1990s genres such as Grunge exist in some form or another during the 2000s decade), similar video game franchises (Sonic the Hedgehog series, Star Fox), fashions (straight hair, body art, hipster scene), and social concerns (globalization, media violence/sex/profanity)."----Is this necessary? Doesn't every decade experience in one way or another the decade before it? This doesn't make sense to me. Thoughts? American007 01:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cell phones become cheaper and decrease in size, and are soon a necessity for modern life.????

That sounds like some POV there, definately no NPOV I get through life fine without those annoying cell phones this should be removed.

The artical does not say that cell phones are a necessity for modern life, it says that they are percived as a necesity for modern life. I don't have, or want, a cell phone either, but I have to agree that cell phones are percieved as a necessity for modern life. I think that the percieved makes the article NPOV.

I changed it to that "they became a must-have". Retromaniac

What is up with that second paragraph? "The ninties are a watered down vergion of the eighties, and the "bad part of the seventies"? What is the bad part of the seventies? and How is that decade "the watered down eighties"?--Yack 08:22, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's just vandalism. You did the right thing by deleting it. --Lancevortex 09:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

---

On the page about 1990 you say the following: End of apartheid in South Africa and election of ANC government of Nelson Mandela

This is incorrect. The ANC were elected in 1994.

The page for 1990 notes Mandela's release and the legalization of the ANC, not the end of apartheid or Mandela's election, which you will indeed find listed in 1994. 1990s, the article this page is a discussion area for, lists important events that occur during the entire decade of the 1990s. --Brion

I suggest some kind of (maybe commonly used) classification for events and trends. Suggestion edited now to 1990s. Argument: after a while we are going to have mess of details at these decades and centuries near our time. In 20th_century there is also alittle different grouping... --- Aulis Eskola 27.4.2006

How about adding the 1997 Hong Kong hand over to China and 1999 Macau hand over to China ?

---

Music

Do all of the musicians on the list belong here? While many of them were major artists in the 1990s, some of them seem to just be there to point out that they were still making music at the time (such as Tear For Fears and ZZ Top), and others had very little impact. -- LGagnon

I agree LGagnon. There's definitely a lot of artists here who have only been added because they're someone's favourite rather than because of major sales or lasting influence. Many of them will be forgotten in 10 years time - in fact about half of them I haven't even heard of -- but that probably says more about my parochial attitude than anything else! But that notwithstanding, someone needs to do a cull. Personally I'd recommend ditching the entire list and just leaving the links to music of the 90's that are already there, before the whole page gets taken over by third-rate musicians. --Lancevortex 12:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I did some culling. More may be warranted, but I'll see if anybody begins screaming. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the lists of musicians, athletes and entertainers.

I think there should be a list of popular figures, but we should definitely be willing to cull when there are signs of people padding them. Average Earthman 09:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The list definitely needed trimming, but why get rid of the whole thing? A list of the prominent and influential acts or albums of the 1990's has relevence. No such information exists anywhere else on Wikipedia. I understand getting rid of the 2000's list, but we have some hindsight on the 90's right? Can we agree acts like Nirvana, Spice Girls and Radiohead had some impact (even if you're not fans of them)? If society's views change later, then the list can change with them. swidly 07:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Swidly, but I thought that it was best to delete the lot and start again as it had become so diluted with acts of little importance. In my opinion, about 5-10 bands would be a reasonable number to show the most important and influential musicians of the decade. It's crazy that a list of musicians should so dominate a page which is meant to distill the most important events of this time period. I would welcome you (or anyone else) re-creating the (much shorter) list, but I fear that it is likely to go the same way again. --Lancevortex 12:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Someone should add something about the 'boy bands' (N'sync, Backstreet Boys, 98 degrees etc...) and britney spears/christina aguilera 'girl pop' popularized during the nineties.

And what about musicians such as Vanilla Ice, New Kids on the Block, M.C. Hammer and ICP? I understand we have the artists from the mid=90's and above who are still fresh in our minds, but what about the early nineties artists??

I'm going to have to change some things that refer to electronic music here because some of it is just plain inaccurate. I already made some changes but electronica is NOT a type of music and more types than trance and techno became popular. Also, Ecstasy is a street name for Methylenedioxymethamphetamine so that needs to be changed also. In short, please don't get upset if you wrote something down and I needed to change it because it was wrong. Highbrow 15:36, 28 Feb 2007

Is the term "rock 'n' roll" really suitable for the first section? I understand that this may be the official term, but really seems archaic and innacurate, considering the icons we now associate with that genre. Also, why does hard rock have its own section but grunge doesn't? I would suggest splitting this up and going into further detail on each subgenre, as lumping them all under "rock 'n' roll" just seems obtuse. Arkyopterix 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Christian Music continued to increase in popularity, with artists such as DC Talk, Jars of Clay, Amy Grant and Sixpence None the Richer all releasing platinum selling albums. Songs such as Baby Baby by Amy Grant, Flood by Jars of Clay, and Kiss Me by Sixpence None the Richer were all Top 40 hits, including Six Pence None the Richer's wonderful cover of the heroin addiction theme song "There She Goes", a wonderful allegory to the sense of false joy that religious people feel by "understanding" the universe and failing to read any deeper then the literal meaning of things.

Far too much "opinion" in this paragraph - superlatives, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.249.2 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Entertainers

Should examples of works (albums, movies) come from the 1990s only? ie, would it be incorrect to put Murder by Numbers for Sandra Bullock since this came after the time? –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 23:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Correct! --Lancevortex 09:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roger that. Over and out. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 14:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Random Passing Person: What about TV? Digimon(for the now University age N.Americans), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. What about Harry Potter?

Yes Buffy, what would the 90s be with out our very own vampire slayer, who starred in one of the most enjoyable shows fo the 90s! Oliver Simon 10:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Science, Technology, Culture

I wish the science section was more developed than the entertainer section. I added a line in the science section about the development of protease inhibitors and HAART for the treatment of AIDS since it had such a huge impact on mortality rates. Seems like there should be more to say in the area of science for that whole decade. Anybody know anything about physics, biology, chemistry that would represent a key breakthrough?Tobycat 05:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, Tobycat. Alas, Wikipedia contributors tend to add what they know about and more people are well-versed in entertainment than science. Says a lot about Western society I think! I also think that it's too soon to write a definitive list of the most important events of the 1990s; I think in 20 years time we may have a better perspective on it and be able to decide more easily which events were truly world-changing. I think even some of the science events listed here will seem quaint and old-fashioned then. Anyway, I realise this wasn't a very helpful reply, hopefully someone else will come up with one! --Lancevortex 12:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can someone who knows a bit about art please add a section about 1990's art? I was looking for information and noticed that this article does not talk about art.

1990s Culture "overall"

I believe the purpose of the 1990s page, 1980s page, 2000s page, and all others, is to give you a bird's eye view of the decade. When you start to list things that happen on a yearly basis (at a microscopic level) it should get listed in the year in which it happened. For example, if Grunge music was popular in 1991 - 1992, place it under, the [[1991] page and the 1992 page; even though this is false, since many music historian believe grunge music peaked when Kurt Cobain committed suicide, on April 5, 1994. Therefore, some of the garbage under this category needs to be either eliminated, or moved to it proper page in history. 65.129.194.121 14:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You have a point; relatively minor things which happened only over a few days, weeks or months should probably be listed in their respective year entries. But I think popular music trends which last for several years of the decade should be mentioned here, especially if they're as influential as grunge was. --Jacj 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture Section

I think the culture section should be reduced in size, and summarised, rather than just consisting of a list of bullet-pointed links. posted by User:Obscure41 on 16:43, 11 December 2005

Be bold! Any constructive edits would be appreciated. --Mgreenbe 15:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

first paragraph

can someone better rephrase this. I'm not a wiki editor but this is just horrible abuse of the english language:

   "1990s and 2000s are´nt so identical. The difference between year 1990 and year 2006 is really big. In 1993 the 80s trends weren´t impopular allready but they were in 1999."

thanks, Mike

REPLY TO ABOVE: Yes, I agree the diff between 1990 and 2006 is HUGE, as 1990 was still a lot like the eighties, but what about between 1997 and 2006? Nine years, nearly a decade, but is it really that big a difference? After all, Green Day, Weezer, Mariah Carey, and Tupac are all still hot, and the boyband/girl group craze still isn't 100% over. Some differences, certainly, such as the popular of Good Charlotte-type bands, the whole 80s nostalgia wave (which began around 1997 btw), and the rise of Reality, but the difference between the late 90s and today is really minimal compared to say, 1972 to 1981.

• I can not take the opening paragraph of this article seriously. I love Seinfeld, but to try to claim that the decade was 'defined' by a sitcom is bizarre and illogical. The population of the earth at this time was between five and six billion, the majority of whom did not own a television. The opening of this article should deal with global politics. The nineties can surely only be defined by what affected the earth's population as a whole, regardless of the language this is written in, and further regardless of the calendar used. 'The nineties', or any other decade on the Gregorian calendar exists globally - i.e., the Islamic or Chinese experience of the same time should not be discounted, to pick two examples. It is not as if this decade was lacking in significant global events and political trends to discuss. Some have attempted to claim that this article presents a particularly American point of view. I'm not convinced; rather, it promotes a tiresome and unfounded 'fanboy' point of view, keen to promote its own narrow interest. As such, I think it is fair to say that Bill Clinton was a major influence on this decade worldwide, but any reference to 'Sonic the Hedgehog' should be within the body of the text.

--Discosebastian 10:09, 20th September 2006 (UTC+1)

the 90s is defined by the ascendance of popular culture and fanboyism over politics and wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture section: Colours

I don't agree that black became a dominant color in the 1990s. On the contrary -- 1990s colors were: yellow, orange, red, blue, green and all kind of bright colors.

Yes, black was on fashion, but wasn't a dominant colour. LuckyAfterAll 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)LuckyAfterAll

Bright colors were actually popular at the time, so whoever said that is right. Anything colorful, etc. Black was a trend too but not dominant. Actually was black ever really dominant? metalhead 23:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I associate neon colours with the 90s. And garish patterns. Black comes and goes every decade...

hmm, I always thought the early 90s were bright (like the 80s), in the mid 90s there were more darker colors and late 90s bright again.

"Wasssuppp!"

This is mentioned in the Trends/Culture section. But didn't it catch on through the Budweiser adverts, which were in 2000, making them not part of the 1990s? BillyH 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wasssuppp!" didn't become popular because of a Budweiser commercial. The phrase was popularized in the 1992 sitcom Martin, along the phrases "You Go Girl" and "Talk to the Hand". By the time Budweiser started using the word, it was already common lingo. By the way, even the concept of the "Wasssuppp commercial" wasn't original. It was a parody of the Jerky Boys. | QzDaddy 15:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

imac

Wasn't the imac a 90's thing? Im sure it influenced a lot of the visual deisgn of products... There was that sort of 'futurisitc' look just prior to the millenium with transluscent and white coloured plastic.

What?

"others believe we are still in the 1990s" We are not still in the 1990s. Can someone explain this better in the article? I think I get the writer is trying to point out but I can't think of a way to explain it better.

How about:

"others believe we are still, culturally, in the 1990s"

? The sentence may need to be changed on the whole though. - Rudykog 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. RidE the Lightning! 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just to clarify why I edited - I removfed the following sentence from the fist paragraph. "THE COOLEST PERSON IN THE WORLD WAS BORN!!! HELLZ YA BABIECAKES!!!!!" I know it would ahve been removed rather quickly, anyhow, but...yeah. -is not a Wikipedia member- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.222.90 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

American POV

I believe this article does not have a worldwide POV. As an American, I recognize a whole lot of the stuff, but from a worldwide perspective, it is a largely American POV.

For example, no British television shows or music.

I think it's fairly ridiculous that the first thing after the explanation of which years are involved in the '90s is what the '90s were like in the United States. - 211.28.136.87 12:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well think about what you are saying - you are an American and you think the article is mainly American POV. And also, "I think it's fairly ridiculous that the first thing after the explanation of which years are involved in the '90s is what the '90s were like in the United States." ...For that, how is it ridiculous? I really don't see many British folks posting on here about their history. Or man other nations. If the history really needs to be there someone will put it up eventually. metalhead 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as european, I sort of half reconize American trends which have blown across to ocean towards us. But not much of what happened in europe, and in the rest of the world for that matter, it would be good if somebody with a bit of 90s knowledge of other parts of the world would add some stuff. As the article article now mainly respresents America. Oliver Simon 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is really very unbalanced. Especially the selection of the entries in the lists seem very subjective. Maybe somone should revise them and give them a more general level (e.g. "the rise of the Internet" instead of mentioning the specific browsers, etc.). --83.171.165.202 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be an article for a worldwide view on the 90's and specific country articles("90's in the US" for example) so that the material in this article fit better. Bunder 19:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed a very unbalanced article. Why not just call it nineties in North America and put the few things which wouldn't belong there in an other article with a more international context. This article already is to big, which I think is the reason why nobody from Europe (and the rest of the 6 billion people in the world) posts here. Seperating it would mainly solve the problem.

Isn't the US allot more trendy anyway--decades probably don't have as much a feel in other countries. TrevorLSciAct 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of my anti-American sentiments, i'd be willing to edit this page from a British (where I live), European and New Zealand (birthplace) perspective. Cobine 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Technology Neutrality Issue

Can the neutrality warning be removed now? If I'm not mistaken, the following statement is why the neutrality of this article has been challenged: "Cell phones become cheaper and decrease in size, and are soon a perceived necessity for modern life." It is a fact that cell phones are a perceived necessity for modern life, maybe only by certain people, but it is implied that this is not everybody's opinion, because there is no issue where every single person in the world shares an opinion. It states that "cell phones are a perceived necessity for modern life". It does not state "cell phones are a perceived necessity for modern life for everybody". It only takes one person's perception of cell phones being a neccessity for the statement to be true. For example, "Bin Laden is loved" is a true statement, "Bin Laden is loved by every person on earth" is however not. I'd like to see this neutrality warning removed. It's kind of annoying, especially how I have contributed to this section with as unbiased and opinionless information as possible in this section. (No, I didn't submit the cell phone statement.)

Sorry if the way that I have posted this is "wrong" somehow, I'm new where.

Download JPGs in people: World leaders

Hey there, I've got a problem on downloading JPGs. I know on needing approval from wikipedia, BTW this article could have more images or pics. It's hard for me or my program, so I wish any one of you can help. (please reply).

My apologies on my inability to put three image jpgs of the decade's greatest presidents I nominate to have their pics in the article. Would one of you wikis know how to do this programming the jpgs to show up? Thank you.+

| [smallimage=Bill Clinton.jpg]

| [smallimage=Boris Yeltsin 1993.jpg]

| [smallimage=Mandela_minus_Clinton.jpg]

I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial from top to bottom. It'll walk you through the process of uploading and placing pictures. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So Stupid!

The picture of the Berlin Wall was taken in 1989 and not 1990, and anyone with any intelligence would know this.

EDIT: ^ If you're born after 1990 you might not know, so you aren't stupid.

WAY too absolute!

In the 10 most significant events section: 1. Isn't it a bit too opinionated to say what the 10 most significant events were? 2. I dissagree that the Hill vs. Thomas case was anywhere near the top 10.

3. How can you say that EVERYONE on earth considers the millenium the most significant event of their life!!??

Princess Diana's death

Shouldn't Princess Diana's death be mentioned? Darth mavoc

Drazen Petrovic

surely an iconic basketball player is not in the list?! why?!

Spelling and grammar tidied up

The article reads better, but I think that it needs some serious refactoring. I'll come back to it in a few days unless someone beats me to it. --Archaro 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1993 World Series Game 6 Joe Carter Television Graphic.JPG

Image:1993 World Series Game 6 Joe Carter Television Graphic.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Κaiba 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

September 11 2001

Under the heading of world-changing events, the september 11 attacks are listed. Is that really pertinent to this article? It's an event that occurred nearly over a year and a half after the decade this article is about ended. Moquel 08:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it for now. Moquel 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Arlington could signify the start of the 2000s (and end of the 1990s) as prior to the attacks there was not that much panic related to terrorism in the US and other countries in the West (although this is debatable, especially with regards to Spain and Northern Ireland) and there was feeling of security following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This feeling of security (without a major nuclear threat from Russia - except for the freak accident in 1995) can probably be considered a major driving force (for investment and market growth included) in the US during the 1990s. Following the attacks the US and the world were changed significantly with US foreign policy turning more hawkish leading to increased anti-American sentiment throughout the globe. In the US, the economy was affected (although there were other factors such as the "Internet bubble" to the 2001 recession) and there was a surge of panic and patriotism (which got abated when the war in Iraq lost its initial popular support in the US).Abc85 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Create a article People in 1990s

I think this article is much too long, so it would be could to create a article People in 1990s. The list from here could be moved there and this article would much be shorter. Also there would be place for more people of the 1990s. In this article only should be a link to this list. --Quassy_.DE 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of sportspeople

Is professional wrestling really considered a legitimate sport? Perhaps they should be listed under the "entertainers" section instead. And no, I'm not saying it's a lesser section, I'm saying it's not a sport if you occasionally decide who should win in advance for reasons of entertainment. I should add - it comes down to what the goal of professional wrestling is; to entertain, or to settle competition. I feel the former takes clear priority in wrestling.

1990s in India merge back

I don't think there's enough there to be worth splitting out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

FUCK YOU BITCH !!!!... INDIAN HISTORY IS FUCKING AWESOME !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.100.130 (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got the gender wrong. I'm a Bastard, not a BITCH. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

think we can safely conclude that this discussion has ended, so I'm removing the merge tag. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Key Concepts Lacking

I think there are three key characteristics to the 90s that ought to be discussed in the article:

1. information technology/internet bubble

2. "globalization"/free trade

3. political correctness/multi-culturalism

The first two are discussed or alluded to to some extent, but not adequately IMO, and the last is basically omitted. I think those are the three most significant trends of the decade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.24 (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the article's introduction.

I personally think that this article's introduction is poor. A proper introduction of a Wikipedia article would be a short abstract of the main body of the article (or in other words, a vastly summarised version of the whole article). The current introduction only focuses on two aspects of society in the 1990s; personal computers and political correctness. More information on what defined the 1990s in terms of pop culture and the political climate (basically speaking, what the 1990s is best known for) would suffice. I remember that the introduction used to be more coherent, but I bet that someone who didn't like what was presented automatically went for the delete button. If people have an issue with a particular piece of text in the article, then it's best to discuss it with other Wikipedians before editing the article. But anyway I believe the introduction being used right now should present a broader view on the 1990s rather than describing a small piece of 1990s culture. BenettonHuhera (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Reform of the article

I provided a recent edit to this page that would make it less cluttered and made several subpages for misclaneous information regarding the decade. I began to make it look more like the 2000s page, but I guess it was reverted back. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

• articles I created to help shorten the article...
  • 1990s in economics
  • 1990s in technology & science
  • Culture of the 1990s
  • 1990s in video gaming (Tigerghost (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC))

Is anyone interested in reforming this article besides me. This page is in definate need of being shortened. I provided subpages, but everytime I make the article better, someone else reverts it back to its very long form. If no concensus is met on this soon, I may nominate this page for deletion so that it can be rewrote from scratch. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Seinfeld logo.png

The image Image:Seinfeld logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Video Game Section

It seems a little strange to me that the video game section is the same size as the world events section. I know that it's under 'technology', but I think it falls more under the umbrella of culture, and should come after mentions of culture, tv, music, and film. I know we're all nerds here, but I think this article gives too much space to video games and puts them too high on the page. Any thoughts? 76.120.103.127 (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet

I'm removing the statement that the internet was made available for public use in the 90's. According to the Wikipedia article on the internet, college students had access to it since at least the 70's and possibly as early as the 60's (as ARPANET). 65.30.177.186 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Raves

I'm removing the statement about raves. According to the Wikipedia article, raves were an 80's phenomena and for the most part ceased to exist by the early 90's because of being targeted by law enforcement as comtributing to underage drinking, the sale and use of controlled substances and gang violence. 65.30.177.186 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Grunge Fashion

I'm removing the statement on grunge fashion. According to the Wikipedia article on grunge, grunge was an 80's phenomena which had only vestigial remnants by the early 90's. In addtion, there was very little in grunge fashion (if you can even call it that) that wasn't adopted by youth later than the seventies. 65.30.177.186 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Normally I would open these points for discussion, but since many of the points in this article are contradicted by their links to Wikipedia articles, it seems pretty cut and dry. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please cite it in your correction of this page and make sure the other Wikipedia articles conform to that evidence as well. 65.30.177.186 (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't It..

Isn't it technically 1991-2000 are the '90s because of that no year zero concept? Rs09985 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The last decade of the millennium would be 1991–2000, but, as the decade article notes, most conventional decades, such as this one, work by the first few digits of the year number. We had this discussion on one of the other nearby decade talk pages recently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. Decades always comprise of the years xxx0–xxx9. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 09:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar

Is Myanmar in Burma?