|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
In much of the West, the 1990s was a period of unprecedented peace and prosperity - Dubious?
The 90s saw war in a lot of western countries (the Balkans, Northern Ireland, domestic terrorism in the US), crime rates were the worst ever in many places during the first half of the decade, and the recession was arguably the worst since the Great Depression until the current one started in 2007.
The 90s also saw a huge decline in the middle and working classes in a lot of the West.
Isn't such a quote more a matter of opinion and arguably false than factual?
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 ?
Wrong dates for this decade
All centuries and decades begin in a year ending in one and end in a year ending in zero. There was no Year Zero, meaning that the first day of the first decade of the first century, AD, was January 1, 1. The last day of the first decade was December 31, 10 and the last day of the first century was December 31, 100, not 12/31/99. Unless you're going to write off the first century as being only 99 years long, you have to begin and end decades and centuries on one and zero.
It's counter-intuitive, I know, but use your fingers and prove it for yourself.
- Please read WP:RY, or my longer reply at one of your duplicate posts at Talk:2000s (decade)#Wrong dates for this decade. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an error with reference to the [[2nd millennium]: the link states that it "was the thousand-year period that commenced on January 1, 1001 and ended on December 31, 2000". Rwood128 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bring it up as a modification of WP:RY or WP:YEARS, so you don't have the same argument spread out over all of the decade talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
End of Modernity/Beginning of Postmodernity
Given that the two articles on Modernity and Postmodernity are very abstruse, and the postmodernity article seems to state that postmodernity started at the end of World War II, I am going to take out this discussion of the 90s as some delineation between two epochs that are vague academic constructs anyway. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Lists of Names
This article has some very long lists of names of individuals.
- No explanation is offered as to what qualifies a person to be on it. Is it just down to the opinion of the editor adding them?
- Thousands of people became notable during the 90s. Is this article going to attempt to list them all?
- This article is not a list article of "people who became famous during.."
- All in, this appears to be just list cruft that should be removed.
The Economist poll
I've removed The Economist poll from the lead. It was a local American poll, apparently conducted among ordinary people, not historians. The cited source itself doesn't agree with the results, writing about "Americans' inexplicable aversion to the 1990s" and that "the 1990s, by contrast, were amazing", so this falls under WP:IMPARTIAL. Brandmeistertalk 14:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
The poll was included to signify the social mood of the decade, and provided a good launching pad for discussion and research, and falls in-line with any other opinion survey. I think it should be included in the lead. RomanGrandpa (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- The 1990s aren't limited to just the US and the article has a worldwide coverage of events, so I don't see a compelling reason to include opinions from just one country. Saying something like the 90s is the least memorable decade in the US is very subjective and controversial. The poll may go to The Economist itself. Brandmeistertalk 13:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)