Talk:21st century

Large portions of the world have current population deficits..

Some areas have populations that are shrinking, not growing. Take Europe for example. If this trend has changed in the last 2-3 years, it hasn't changed much. The global population could easily double without becoming a major global problem.

Also, I always see some remark of "The War on Terror" on any political or social article even remotely related. I always see the criticisms of the 'war' but I never see the rebuttal as to why it might just be fighting the greater of two evils. Terrorist attacks involving islamic fundamentalists have been occuring since WW2. North Korea, for example, is an immediate threat to two U.S. allies, Japan and South Korea. Immediately after 9/11, the DOW industrial average dropped over 7% to around 8950, the largest decline ever in a single day. If you are referring to the Patriot Act, the slight majority think that the Patriot act doesn't go far enough. Note that only 13% know much about the Patriot Act. 60% know little or nothing about the Patriot act.

Just try to keep it objective for all readers. If you are going to start by listing criticisms, link the rebuttals as well. IMHO, McCarthyism and Nixon's strong arm tactics were more of a threat to civil liberties than the "War on Terror". Some would agree that the "War on Drugs" impedes on civil liberty more than the "War on Terror". Speaking of which, that page could use a Pro and Con list.

Alphabetical Order

In the Influential people in politics as of 2005 section, a note says the names are in alphabetical order. They are not. For instance, George Bush is right above Vladimir Putin while Jean Chretien is somewhere below both of them. It is probably easier to remove the note than to reorder them all.

Deaths in War (iraq)

Should we really have that Lancet study in there? Although it was definetely widely disseminated and is notable for maybe affecting people's views on the war, it's margin of error is absolutely enormous. Although the mean amount of deaths they predicted was 102,000, the 95% confidence interval is plus or minus 94,000. The study really isn't worth that much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.50.91.70 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 11 January 2006.

Archbishop of Canterbury?

Should he be under 'influential people in relgiion'? He is the head of the Anglican Church, and his opinions are considered important when it comes to international events...

Neuromancer

Why is Neuromancer by William Gibson listed under Television and film when it's a novel? And I don't think any date was given in the book.

I'm deleting it.

The Nobel Prize

How about a section comprised of Nobel laureates?

Fix up the politics, wars & genoicide part?

There seems to be a lot of information on politics, wars & genocide. I think we should just have the title of the wars and not such a long description beside them to make it appear neater & cleaner.

Bush was appointed

As outlined in Bush v. Gore, Bush was effectively _appointed_ president by the supreme court, rather than democratically elected by a majority vote. However, the article dodges this distinction (in the second bullet of 3.2) with the phrasing "Bush became president". 'Became' is much more vague/obfuscating than either 'was elected' (the 'laymans' expectation) or 'was appointed' (the realists/fact). 'Became' is the neutral/vague option, although the more specific term, 'appointed', happens to be more politically charged despite the higher accuracy. To be neutral, without the intentionally masking language, 'Bush became the second president' should be changed to 'Bush was appointed', with a suitable link to the aformentioned court case. Even if 'appointed' is judged by _whoever_ to be too partisan, at the very least 'became' should link to the BvG article for clarity of a potential controversy. This page is currently 'hot' due to reddit, so I won't touch it. Said bullet was added to the article by user User:Austin Tsar444 on October 7, 2009. Ghostwo 05:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)