Talk:1990s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Columbine[edit]

Unfortunately, the "Columbine massacre" is not that unusual in the US any more. Possibly this one is notable in the 1990s, but I would argue against further school shootings being notable in year or decade articles.

In any case, it's not a terrorist act. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not strike me as being a worldly event defining the 1990s either; that is why I have just removed the mention. The United States has had numerous school shootings before the tragic event, including some dating the 1700s and at least one apparently being deadlier than this one. Something like this would work for me on 1999 in the United States, but I highly doubt it would work here on this list.
I notice that this list suffers from being biased in favor of the Western world, where we have more trivial Western events and fewer important non-Western events being listed. This was just one instance of the systemic bias on Wikipedia in the form of geopolitics. It may be a good idea to put a banner on the top of the list that highlights this problem. FreeMediaKid! 01:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree on the issue of bias. Is Tamagotchi really more important than most countries' sum of events? Toraboshi (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Collage[edit]

@MaesterTonberry:: I just realised the collage for 1990s has no image for the handover of Hong Kong, which was a big deal. It should perhaps replace either Hubble Telescope or Princess Diana. Ythlev (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The collage image is perfectly fine. Leaf8613 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ythlev - I remember the handover of Hong Kong, even though I'm european and was a child at that time. Can't be compared to the funeral, which, after all, was a media event about a celebrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1110:118:A377:15E1:DBE0:6326:5D9C (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swap Dolly the Sheep picture with one of Michael Jordan in montage?[edit]

Current image
Proposed image
Image on left is the current image; Image on right is proposed image

What do we think about swapping the picture of the cloned Dolly the Sheep with this image of Michael Jordan in the lead montage? It has been since the 1920s article (with Babe Ruth) that an athlete was included in the lead montage and Jordan certainly could be the first since Ruth where an athlete had such a profound impact on a sport throughout a decade. Note also that the same Dolly the Sheep image is still included in the body of the article with the same caption it currently has in the montage. Caption for new MJ photo could be something like: "Michael Jordan becomes the most famous basketball player of the era." No formatting changes to the montage would be needed. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first mammal cloned from a somatic cell is much more significant. That is not to say Michael Jordan is irrelevant but these two cannot be compared Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for the intrusion, folks, but I believe Michael Jordan should be included in the lead montage somehow. Dolly the Sheep can stay, I've got no problem with that. But Michael Jordan is still considered by many (including me) to be the greatest basketball player of all time. And he became a true international sports icon in the '90s. M.J. should be included in the lead montage somehow. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree! I don't have a problem with Dolly the Sheep staying either, I just figured that with the formatting of the montage, it would be easiest to simply swap out the image with this one of Jordan, but if someone can make it work, I'm totally cool with both images (MJ and Dolly) being included. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is all the other events in the montage are notable and deserve to be there. And it would make it crowded to include another image Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Current lead montage
What about maybe making each of the photos on the bottom row just a tad thinner, and doing almost a 50-50 split with the pic above of MJ and the one used here of Dolly the Sheep? While the Soviet Union Dissolution photo and World Wide Web one are slightly wider. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having recreated the montage, with a raw editable version available, I do not believe Michael Jordan should be added to the montage, as it's a limited selection of the events, which had the largest impact on the world.
  • Hubble revealed the universe, as never seen before
  • The Gulf War was just the beginning of decades of conflict, in the Middle East
  • The Oslo Accords brought the first peace deal between Arabs and Israelis
  • The internet - need I say more?
  • August Coup that led to the collapse of the world's largest (by area) country and supposed US political opposite
  • Dolly the Sheep, who was demonstrated the possibility of cloning mammals (that includes humans)
  • Princess Diana's funeral, watched by 2.5 billion people (almost half of the planet)
  • The genocide in Rwanda, which is and was one of the worst atrocities, ever committed
Michael Jordan did great in the world of basketball, but probably less significant, for the space of a summative montage. ~ Bacon Noodles (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is not as important to others on here, but I just can't help but keep coming back to Babe Ruth being included in the 1920s montage. Then why not Jordan in the 1990s montage? To many, Jordan was even more globally relevant than Ruth in their respective eras, and defined his decade in the world of sports even more so than Ruth defined his (although not by much) -- many call Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time and one of (if not thee) greatest athlete of all time as well. So shouldn't he be included in the montage then? Thanks for contributing. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling it has to do with Babe Ruth being one of the first sports celebrities during some significant pandemics and wars. Being among the first sports heroes sounds pretty culturally significant to me. Please refer to the section about "Contemporary impact" on the Babe Ruth Wikipedia entry. I think the Dolly the Sheep image should stay. Toraboshi (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias?[edit]

Is it just me or is this whole page filled with bias? Some of the things are wrong here and the 90s had a lot of bad events that defined the decade but for some reason isn’t here. ExoticPride (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of our articles covering decades are rather underdeveloped. Koopinator (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement in the introduction about ‘economic prosperousness’[edit]

'Many high developed countries were economically prosperous in the 1990s'

That's a wrong statement. It was mostly just the United States. Europe and Asia were struggling. Melotrance (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End of Apartheid in South Africa should be added in the Collage.[edit]

It was big deal back then I suppose. Sertyt (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collage[edit]

It appears an RFC on collages on Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in decade articles. Users here may wish to participate. Koopinator (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disparity with 20th century and 2nd millennium[edit]

How come the wikipedia article for the 1990s says the 1990s ended on December 31, 1999, despite 20th century stating the century as having ended on December 31, 2000, and 2nd millennium stating the millennium ended on December 31, 2000? 24.115.255.37 (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because when people talk about a decade, they mostly refer to it as 'cultural eras', for example, 80s music, 70s movie, 90s fashion etc. But when people talk about a century, they mostly refen to it as an overall human history. So they try to be more 'scientific' by saying '20th Century' rather than '1900s'. Hope that helps.84.54.70.206 (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP editor is wrong. The "1990s" dating scheme goes back theoretically infinitely and includes, say, 930s.
The real reason is that "1990s" is not equal to the 200th decade (1991-2000). See decade. Koopinator (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that would make the 0000s and -0000s only nine years each, which is not a decade 24.115.255.37 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. The 0s and 0s BC have only 9 years each. Koopinator (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's not a decade. that's only 9 years. explain yourselves. 24.115.255.37 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to explain. You have correctly observed that the 0s and 0s BC are not decades. Koopinator (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All about sex in the early 90's[edit]

It's all about sex in the early 90's. 71.247.208.187 (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1990s&oldid=1216896283"