Talk:2000s

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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!