This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Did I seriously look at the front page of a 90's overview and NOT see the name Michael Jordan. Did I? Tell me arguably the most famous pop icon of the decade is not missing from the front page of the article. This must be a dream.
Say wha? Michael Jordan is a basketball player, not a pop icon. 92.20.201.137 ( talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Random Passing Person: What about TV? Digimon(for the now University age N.Americans), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. What about Harry Potter?
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)
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.
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)
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
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 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.
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? Billy H 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
"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.
"others believe we are still, culturally, in the 1990s"
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).
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)
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)
You've gotta take out the thing on cell phones becoming a part of life. Cell phones did not become as important as they are now or enter the popular mainstream until the 2000's. When you watch a 90's sitcom, you don't see people walknig around talking on cell phones. They were occasionally owned by business people but people still relied on pagers, notes and voicemail messages on landlines. This needs to be edited.
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.
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]
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.
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!!??
Shouldn't Princess Diana's death be mentioned? Darth mavoc
surely an iconic basketball player is not in the list?! why?!
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)
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)
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)
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 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. D E 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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)
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))
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))
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 technically 1991-2000 are the '90s because of that no year zero concept? Rs09985 ( talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Myanmar in Burma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.73 ( talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In the video games section it is mentioned that Doom was one of the first multiplayer games. I find that odd, seeing as multiplayer videogames have existed since the 70's. Now, online multiplayer would be the correct statement I believe. -- Axe995 ( talk) 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the photo montage of events, however most pictures relates to something done in America, or by America. Whilst there is no dispute that the United States was the preeminent power in the 1990s, I think that some balance might be warranted to provide a worldwide view, and put things in their proper perspective. I cannot see why the WTO protest in Seattle or Columbine rates a mention, and Rwanda or Bosnia doesn't. The 1990s was not noted for space exploration, so I would ditch the Hubble picture too. And do we need references to two television shows? Kransky ( talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we have at least one mention of Tony Blair? I think he could possibly be considered a fairly important figure of the late 1990's... 92.13.101.235 ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The first third of the '90s we we're in a recession, for people in California it was longer, stronger and tarnished much of the state's socioeconomic profile ever since. The media in recent years starting in 2005 admitted it wasn't as "good" like originally thought, and we thought the '80s economic situation was "good" but dismissed in the same manner the upper-middle class and wealthiest benefited more than the poor or working-class. The problem was in the 1970's & early third of the '80s, most of the U.S. manufacturing base declined and the " rust belt" states became to symbolize what was wrong with America in socio-economic terms, though it was the era of the " sun belt" states to prospered in the 90s & early 2000's before the current economic crisis we're in for the last 2 years. The last fifth of the 20th century (1980s/90s) is when neo-conservative and neo-liberal economic policies shaped the standard of living, thus it wasn't as good for those not born in affluence or hadn't rose to the top level of their professional careers. + 71.102.3.86 ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The earlier one looked better
they should have pictures in the top right corner like all the previous decades it makes the page look good and the same with the 2000's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics010 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Any views? Kransky ( talk) 08:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The aim should be to describe the 'general' relevance and changes of the decade. In this article the focus is more on listing individual significant events. As a pragmatic approach I think it's okay, because 'general' relevance depends ofcourse unevitably on the background of the author. Summarising, I tend to agree with the set-up of this article. However, if I look at the article 1960s, I currently see there for example a list of notable baseball players in the USA. In my opinion, this level of detail could be moved to more specific articles (in this example an article dealing with sports in the 1960s). Bob.v.R ( talk) 12:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Before deciding what specific information should be included, we need to decide what type of information should be included, and in what style it should be presented. In my experience, decade articles tend to become a major focal points for the short-sighted to add what is essentially well-intentioned graffiti ("Oh, I remember when this happened, it must be significant enough to include!"). The more recent the decade, the more difficult the problem. So without some pre-set guidelines, the articles degrade into trash (the worst example that I know of being this).
So here's some thoughts that I have about what decade articles should look like:
These are just some thoughts that occur to me as sensible guidelines. I look forward to the comments of others. Un sch ool 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There used to be many duplicates on this article because there were different yet similar sections. The current "Additional significant world-wide events" still contains some duplicates/misplaced segments. I would appreciate any help moving the duplicates/misplaced segments from this section into their appropriate sections in the article. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor wishes this paragraph to be included.
The nineties are considered by many western countries to be a peaceful time that occurred after the effective end of the Cold War (1945–1991), but before the 9/11 Attacks and the ensuing War on Terror (2001–present), named the "Interwar Years" (December 25, 1991, until September 11, 2001), by Therese Delpech from the Washington Quarterly. [1]
I don't think the facts in this paragraph are right. I doubt many people in western countries (countries don't consider issues, people do) would regard the 1990s an "interwar period". Neither the Cold War nor War on Terror are wars. The number of US combat deaths in Iraq is still less than 10% of US combat deaths in Vietnam. People today would regard, if anything, the 1920s and 1930s as the real interwar period.
Certainly if we are talking about a viewpoint it no longer becomes a case of right or wrong. But who is this Therese Delpech person? How can her viewpoint be the sole, defining observation of the decade in a short, tight introduction? Introductions are no place for analysis anyway. Kransky ( talk) 12:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1990s montage on the top of the page through a discussion (and not through edit wars) which would include (hopefully) many Wikipedians.
The current montage is composed of the following images:
Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What does that say about our culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.75.112.86 ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This section looks rather emaciated in terms of content. "Third Wave Feminism" was certainly not the only significant social phenomenon of the '90s (and I would put that more under a "political" section, in any event). I agree with an earlier contributor - political correctness/multiculturalism and its effects on the social fabrics of various nations - including the social conflicts it caused - should also be considered under "society"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 ( talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no article on literature of the 90's, but there is a massive, far too in-depth section on video games (yes, I know they were a new mass development)? This article should be written a bit more balanced and neutrally as well. I have a feeling it's only a bunch of people who grew up in the 90's writing this, since the average age of Wikipedians might tell us that. When the only literature achievement is Goosebumps, something's a bit crooked. No offense, but might a cleanup or neutrality tag be necessary? Finalius ( Say what?) 13:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the 1990s talk page should have a new archive system alike most decades' talk pages. The 1990's is the most recent decade before this one (2000's+) and should be broken down into more than one part. + Mike D 26 ( talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Baby One More Time (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
the literature section's somewhat small, could we have an arcticle for the books that were published in the 90's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.23.185 ( talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Oslo Accords though acclaimed at the time of their creation, were not effectively implemented and were abandoned by the Israeli government. Historically they are not significant. A more important peace accord in the 1990s that should be shown is the picture available of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic signing the Dayton Agreement, ending the ethnic conflict of Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina that had caused the deaths of 100,000 people along with millions of people displaced, and both European and American diplomatic and military intervention in a period of three years. The end of the Bosnian War coincided with the end of the Croatian War shortly prior, and thus the Dayton Accord ended the four years of continuous ethnic conflict that existed from 1991 to 1995. It symbolizes the Yugoslav Wars, that were the first major wars in Europe since World War II.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Another important issue that is not shown is the groundshaking political transformation of South Africa with the end of apartheid. A picture of Nelson Mandela, anti-Apartheid leader and first non-White president of South Africa would be appropriate in the infobox to represent this major political development in Africa. I think it is more important than the death of Princess Diana - though this was a cause of major outpouring of grief in Britain, it directly affected the life of one person - the end of apartheid directly affected the lives of millions of people.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the Oslo Accords was a work of Bill Clinton. This is not correct. The agreement was a work of norwegian diplomats, among others Johan Jørgen Holst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermeister83 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"It was the last decade of both the 20th century and the 2nd millennium."
The year 2000 (the 2000's) is the last year of the 20th century, as well as the last of the 2nd millennium. The opening statement as written is wrong. the decade 2000-2009 (consisting of the year 2000) is the last year of that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.3.23.14 ( talk) 11:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is Gianni Versace on the assassination list? His death seems more of a murder than an assassination, as he was killed by Andrew Cunanan, who is listed as a serial killer on Wikipedia.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
[[User:Richardkeefe57
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)
The second sentence is contradicted by the links to 20th century and Millennium. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
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. 173.11.183.118 ( talk) 15:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Did I seriously look at the front page of a 90's overview and NOT see the name Michael Jordan. Did I? Tell me arguably the most famous pop icon of the decade is not missing from the front page of the article. This must be a dream.
Say wha? Michael Jordan is a basketball player, not a pop icon. 92.20.201.137 ( talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Random Passing Person: What about TV? Digimon(for the now University age N.Americans), Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc. What about Harry Potter?
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)
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.
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)
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
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 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.
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? Billy H 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
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.
"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.
"others believe we are still, culturally, in the 1990s"
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).
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)
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)
You've gotta take out the thing on cell phones becoming a part of life. Cell phones did not become as important as they are now or enter the popular mainstream until the 2000's. When you watch a 90's sitcom, you don't see people walknig around talking on cell phones. They were occasionally owned by business people but people still relied on pagers, notes and voicemail messages on landlines. This needs to be edited.
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.
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]
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.
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!!??
Shouldn't Princess Diana's death be mentioned? Darth mavoc
surely an iconic basketball player is not in the list?! why?!
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)
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)
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)
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 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. D E 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
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.
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 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)
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)
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))
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))
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 technically 1991-2000 are the '90s because of that no year zero concept? Rs09985 ( talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Is Myanmar in Burma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.73 ( talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
In the video games section it is mentioned that Doom was one of the first multiplayer games. I find that odd, seeing as multiplayer videogames have existed since the 70's. Now, online multiplayer would be the correct statement I believe. -- Axe995 ( talk) 20:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the photo montage of events, however most pictures relates to something done in America, or by America. Whilst there is no dispute that the United States was the preeminent power in the 1990s, I think that some balance might be warranted to provide a worldwide view, and put things in their proper perspective. I cannot see why the WTO protest in Seattle or Columbine rates a mention, and Rwanda or Bosnia doesn't. The 1990s was not noted for space exploration, so I would ditch the Hubble picture too. And do we need references to two television shows? Kransky ( talk) 12:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Could we have at least one mention of Tony Blair? I think he could possibly be considered a fairly important figure of the late 1990's... 92.13.101.235 ( talk) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The first third of the '90s we we're in a recession, for people in California it was longer, stronger and tarnished much of the state's socioeconomic profile ever since. The media in recent years starting in 2005 admitted it wasn't as "good" like originally thought, and we thought the '80s economic situation was "good" but dismissed in the same manner the upper-middle class and wealthiest benefited more than the poor or working-class. The problem was in the 1970's & early third of the '80s, most of the U.S. manufacturing base declined and the " rust belt" states became to symbolize what was wrong with America in socio-economic terms, though it was the era of the " sun belt" states to prospered in the 90s & early 2000's before the current economic crisis we're in for the last 2 years. The last fifth of the 20th century (1980s/90s) is when neo-conservative and neo-liberal economic policies shaped the standard of living, thus it wasn't as good for those not born in affluence or hadn't rose to the top level of their professional careers. + 71.102.3.86 ( talk) 19:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The earlier one looked better
they should have pictures in the top right corner like all the previous decades it makes the page look good and the same with the 2000's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics010 ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Any views? Kransky ( talk) 08:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The aim should be to describe the 'general' relevance and changes of the decade. In this article the focus is more on listing individual significant events. As a pragmatic approach I think it's okay, because 'general' relevance depends ofcourse unevitably on the background of the author. Summarising, I tend to agree with the set-up of this article. However, if I look at the article 1960s, I currently see there for example a list of notable baseball players in the USA. In my opinion, this level of detail could be moved to more specific articles (in this example an article dealing with sports in the 1960s). Bob.v.R ( talk) 12:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Before deciding what specific information should be included, we need to decide what type of information should be included, and in what style it should be presented. In my experience, decade articles tend to become a major focal points for the short-sighted to add what is essentially well-intentioned graffiti ("Oh, I remember when this happened, it must be significant enough to include!"). The more recent the decade, the more difficult the problem. So without some pre-set guidelines, the articles degrade into trash (the worst example that I know of being this).
So here's some thoughts that I have about what decade articles should look like:
These are just some thoughts that occur to me as sensible guidelines. I look forward to the comments of others. Un sch ool 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
There used to be many duplicates on this article because there were different yet similar sections. The current "Additional significant world-wide events" still contains some duplicates/misplaced segments. I would appreciate any help moving the duplicates/misplaced segments from this section into their appropriate sections in the article. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor wishes this paragraph to be included.
The nineties are considered by many western countries to be a peaceful time that occurred after the effective end of the Cold War (1945–1991), but before the 9/11 Attacks and the ensuing War on Terror (2001–present), named the "Interwar Years" (December 25, 1991, until September 11, 2001), by Therese Delpech from the Washington Quarterly. [1]
I don't think the facts in this paragraph are right. I doubt many people in western countries (countries don't consider issues, people do) would regard the 1990s an "interwar period". Neither the Cold War nor War on Terror are wars. The number of US combat deaths in Iraq is still less than 10% of US combat deaths in Vietnam. People today would regard, if anything, the 1920s and 1930s as the real interwar period.
Certainly if we are talking about a viewpoint it no longer becomes a case of right or wrong. But who is this Therese Delpech person? How can her viewpoint be the sole, defining observation of the decade in a short, tight introduction? Introductions are no place for analysis anyway. Kransky ( talk) 12:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1990s montage on the top of the page through a discussion (and not through edit wars) which would include (hopefully) many Wikipedians.
The current montage is composed of the following images:
Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome ( talk) 19:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
What does that say about our culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.75.112.86 ( talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This section looks rather emaciated in terms of content. "Third Wave Feminism" was certainly not the only significant social phenomenon of the '90s (and I would put that more under a "political" section, in any event). I agree with an earlier contributor - political correctness/multiculturalism and its effects on the social fabrics of various nations - including the social conflicts it caused - should also be considered under "society"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.209.144.16 ( talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is there no article on literature of the 90's, but there is a massive, far too in-depth section on video games (yes, I know they were a new mass development)? This article should be written a bit more balanced and neutrally as well. I have a feeling it's only a bunch of people who grew up in the 90's writing this, since the average age of Wikipedians might tell us that. When the only literature achievement is Goosebumps, something's a bit crooked. No offense, but might a cleanup or neutrality tag be necessary? Finalius ( Say what?) 13:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the 1990s talk page should have a new archive system alike most decades' talk pages. The 1990's is the most recent decade before this one (2000's+) and should be broken down into more than one part. + Mike D 26 ( talk) 20:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Baby One More Time (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC) |
the literature section's somewhat small, could we have an arcticle for the books that were published in the 90's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.23.185 ( talk) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Oslo Accords though acclaimed at the time of their creation, were not effectively implemented and were abandoned by the Israeli government. Historically they are not significant. A more important peace accord in the 1990s that should be shown is the picture available of Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman, and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic signing the Dayton Agreement, ending the ethnic conflict of Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina that had caused the deaths of 100,000 people along with millions of people displaced, and both European and American diplomatic and military intervention in a period of three years. The end of the Bosnian War coincided with the end of the Croatian War shortly prior, and thus the Dayton Accord ended the four years of continuous ethnic conflict that existed from 1991 to 1995. It symbolizes the Yugoslav Wars, that were the first major wars in Europe since World War II.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Another important issue that is not shown is the groundshaking political transformation of South Africa with the end of apartheid. A picture of Nelson Mandela, anti-Apartheid leader and first non-White president of South Africa would be appropriate in the infobox to represent this major political development in Africa. I think it is more important than the death of Princess Diana - though this was a cause of major outpouring of grief in Britain, it directly affected the life of one person - the end of apartheid directly affected the lives of millions of people.-- R-41 ( talk) 14:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The article says that the Oslo Accords was a work of Bill Clinton. This is not correct. The agreement was a work of norwegian diplomats, among others Johan Jørgen Holst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermeister83 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
"It was the last decade of both the 20th century and the 2nd millennium."
The year 2000 (the 2000's) is the last year of the 20th century, as well as the last of the 2nd millennium. The opening statement as written is wrong. the decade 2000-2009 (consisting of the year 2000) is the last year of that time period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.3.23.14 ( talk) 11:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is Gianni Versace on the assassination list? His death seems more of a murder than an assassination, as he was killed by Andrew Cunanan, who is listed as a serial killer on Wikipedia.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini
[[User:Richardkeefe57
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)
The second sentence is contradicted by the links to 20th century and Millennium. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
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. 173.11.183.118 ( talk) 15:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)