Talk:1990s/Archives/2012

Michael Jordan not on the front article page...seriously...is this 90's or not?

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)

Music

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

I agree LGagnon. There's definitely a lot of artists here who have only been added because they're someone's favourite rather than because of major sales or lasting influence. Many of them will be forgotten in 10 years time - in fact about half of them I haven't even heard of -- but that probably says more about my parochial attitude than anything else! But that notwithstanding, someone needs to do a cull. Personally I'd recommend ditching the entire list and just leaving the links to music of the 90's that are already there, before the whole page gets taken over by third-rate musicians. --Lancevortex 12:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I did some culling. More may be warranted, but I'll see if anybody begins screaming. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the lists of musicians, athletes and entertainers.

I think there should be a list of popular figures, but we should definitely be willing to cull when there are signs of people padding them. Average Earthman 09:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

I agree with you Swidly, but I thought that it was best to delete the lot and start again as it had become so diluted with acts of little importance. In my opinion, about 5-10 bands would be a reasonable number to show the most important and influential musicians of the decade. It's crazy that a list of musicians should so dominate a page which is meant to distill the most important events of this time period. I would welcome you (or anyone else) re-creating the (much shorter) list, but I fear that it is likely to go the same way again. --Lancevortex 12:08, 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)

Music

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

I agree LGagnon. There's definitely a lot of artists here who have only been added because they're someone's favourite rather than because of major sales or lasting influence. Many of them will be forgotten in 10 years time - in fact about half of them I haven't even heard of -- but that probably says more about my parochial attitude than anything else! But that notwithstanding, someone needs to do a cull. Personally I'd recommend ditching the entire list and just leaving the links to music of the 90's that are already there, before the whole page gets taken over by third-rate musicians. --Lancevortex 12:08, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I did some culling. More may be warranted, but I'll see if anybody begins screaming. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the lists of musicians, athletes and entertainers.

I think there should be a list of popular figures, but we should definitely be willing to cull when there are signs of people padding them. Average Earthman 09:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

I agree with you Swidly, but I thought that it was best to delete the lot and start again as it had become so diluted with acts of little importance. In my opinion, about 5-10 bands would be a reasonable number to show the most important and influential musicians of the decade. It's crazy that a list of musicians should so dominate a page which is meant to distill the most important events of this time period. I would welcome you (or anyone else) re-creating the (much shorter) list, but I fear that it is likely to go the same way again. --Lancevortex 12:08, 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)

Entertainers

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)

Correct! --Lancevortex 09:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Roger that. Over and out. –– Constafrequent ^{(talk page)} 14:45, 12 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?

Yes Buffy, what would the 90s be with out our very own vampire slayer, who starred in one of the most enjoyable shows fo the 90s! Oliver Simon 10:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Science, Technology, Culture

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)

Couldn't agree more, Tobycat. Alas, Wikipedia contributors tend to add what they know about and more people are well-versed in entertainment than science. Says a lot about Western society I think! I also think that it's too soon to write a definitive list of the most important events of the 1990s; I think in 20 years time we may have a better perspective on it and be able to decide more easily which events were truly world-changing. I think even some of the science events listed here will seem quaint and old-fashioned then. Anyway, I realise this wasn't a very helpful reply, hopefully someone else will come up with one! --Lancevortex 12:15, 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.

1990s Culture "overall"

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)

You have a point; relatively minor things which happened only over a few days, weeks or months should probably be listed in their respective year entries. But I think popular music trends which last for several years of the decade should be mentioned here, especially if they're as influential as grunge was. --Jacj 15:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture Section

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

Be bold! Any constructive edits would be appreciated. --Mgreenbe 15:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

first paragraph

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 can not take the opening paragraph of this article seriously. I love Seinfeld, but to try to claim that the decade was 'defined' by a sitcom is bizarre and illogical. The population of the earth at this time was between five and six billion, the majority of whom did not own a television. The opening of this article should deal with global politics. The nineties can surely only be defined by what affected the earth's population as a whole, regardless of the language this is written in, and further regardless of the calendar used. 'The nineties', or any other decade on the Gregorian calendar exists globally - i.e., the Islamic or Chinese experience of the same time should not be discounted, to pick two examples. It is not as if this decade was lacking in significant global events and political trends to discuss. Some have attempted to claim that this article presents a particularly American point of view. I'm not convinced; rather, it promotes a tiresome and unfounded 'fanboy' point of view, keen to promote its own narrow interest. As such, I think it is fair to say that Bill Clinton was a major influence on this decade worldwide, but any reference to 'Sonic the Hedgehog' should be within the body of the text.

--Discosebastian 10:09, 20th September 2006 (UTC+1)

the 90s is defined by the ascendance of popular culture and fanboyism over politics and wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Culture section: Colours

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.

"Wasssuppp!"

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? BillyH 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Wasssuppp!" didn't become popular because of a Budweiser commercial. The phrase was popularized in the 1992 sitcom Martin, along the phrases "You Go Girl" and "Talk to the Hand". By the time Budweiser started using the word, it was already common lingo. By the way, even the concept of the "Wasssuppp commercial" wasn't original. It was a parody of the Jerky Boys. | QzDaddy 15:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

imac

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.

What?

"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.

How about:

"others believe we are still, culturally, in the 1990s"

? The sentence may need to be changed on the whole though. - Rudykog 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense. RidE the Lightning! 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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).

American POV

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)

Well think about what you are saying - you are an American and you think the article is mainly American POV. And also, "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." ...For that, how is it ridiculous? I really don't see many British folks posting on here about their history. Or man other nations. If the history really needs to be there someone will put it up eventually. metalhead 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as european, I sort of half reconize American trends which have blown across to ocean towards us. But not much of what happened in europe, and in the rest of the world for that matter, it would be good if somebody with a bit of 90s knowledge of other parts of the world would add some stuff. As the article article now mainly respresents America. Oliver Simon 10:36, 21 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)

Cell Phones

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.

Technology Neutrality Issue

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.

Download JPGs in people: World leaders

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]

I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia:Picture tutorial from top to bottom. It'll walk you through the process of uploading and placing pictures. --Wolf530 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So Stupid!

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.

WAY too absolute!

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!!??

Princess Diana's death

Shouldn't Princess Diana's death be mentioned? Darth mavoc

Drazen Petrovic

surely an iconic basketball player is not in the list?! why?!

Spelling and grammar tidied up

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:1993 World Series Game 6 Joe Carter Television Graphic.JPG

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)

Fair use criteria

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)

September 11 2001

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 removed it for now. Moquel 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Arlington could signify the start of the 2000s (and end of the 1990s) as prior to the attacks there was not that much panic related to terrorism in the US and other countries in the West (although this is debatable, especially with regards to Spain and Northern Ireland) and there was feeling of security following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This feeling of security (without a major nuclear threat from Russia - except for the freak accident in 1995) can probably be considered a major driving force (for investment and market growth included) in the US during the 1990s. Following the attacks the US and the world were changed significantly with US foreign policy turning more hawkish leading to increased anti-American sentiment throughout the globe. In the US, the economy was affected (although there were other factors such as the "Internet bubble" to the 2001 recession) and there was a surge of panic and patriotism (which got abated when the war in Iraq lost its initial popular support in the US).Abc85 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Create a article People in 1990s

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_.DE 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

List of sportspeople

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.

1990s in India merge back

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 you've got the gender wrong. I'm a Bastard, not a BITCH. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

think we can safely conclude that this discussion has ended, so I'm removing the merge tag. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Key Concepts Lacking

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)

Regarding the article's introduction.

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)

Reform of the article

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))

• articles I created to help shorten the article...
  • 1990s in economics
  • 1990s in technology & science
  • Culture of the 1990s
  • 1990s in video gaming (Tigerghost (talk) 12:35, 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))

Image copyright problem with Image:Seinfeld logo.png

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Video Game Section

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)

Internet

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)

Raves

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)

Grunge Fashion

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..

Isn't it technically 1991-2000 are the '90s because of that no year zero concept? Rs09985 (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No. The last decade of the millennium would be 1991–2000, but, as the decade article notes, most conventional decades, such as this one, work by the first few digits of the year number. We had this discussion on one of the other nearby decade talk pages recently. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur is correct. Decades always comprise of the years xxx0–xxx9. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 09:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Myanmar

Is Myanmar in Burma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.53.73 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Doom

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)

Front picture

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)

the images paint a good portrait of what they where like, i find that wikipedia lacks a lot of images (including those of people), and i am trying to eliminate that probelm. (ZenCobain's response in revision history)

I agree that the images look good and enhance the article. Some of them illustrate the most important events of the 1990s.

However the nature of your contribution suggests that these were the nine most significant events of the 1990s, and I think Wikipedia's worldwide editorialship may have a different view.

• Yeltsin on the tank: Good photograph, and certainly relevant
• WWW map: Definitely something on the internet is called for, and I agree it is hard to find something pictorial to represent this (a modem? a Netscape icon?). The image you picked doesn't make me associate it with the internet at first glance.
• Hubble telescope: The 1990s wasn't noted for space exploration compared with earlier decades, and the Hubble satellite wasn't the most groundbreaking contribution to science in the decade.
• Gulf War: Good photograph and relevant.
• Seinfeld: Not relevant. While popular in the United States Seinfeld did not have a significant worldwide following.
• Dolly the Sheep: Represents developments in genetics - relevant.
• Seattle protests: The demonstrations did not cause WTO negotiations to break down. Probably not as important as other event
• Columbine: Probably not as important as other events.

Surprised that the war in Yugoslavia, the end of apartheid or the fall, Rwanda, Diana of Suharto don't get a gurnsey...Kransky (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony Blair?

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)

Good economy?

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 montage Act II

The earlier one looked better

• the white space doesn't look good.
• Three "W"'s don't call to mind the internet
• the Hubble satellite wasn't a notable feature of the 1990s
• stocks soar in every decade. The 1990s wasn't any different, and the graph seems out of place surrounded by photo
• CDs became popular in the 1980s
• can you find something more resembling Rwanda than a table full of skulls?
• television has been popular since the 1950s. There is nothing especially new about the Simpsons or Friends. Kransky (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And there is no need to included Clinton there are more then one world leader elected during the 90s, I think his picture is needed to be removed as it is too americanized for an global article. his picture probably be better in a article called 1990s in USA prohaps if there is one. Pro66 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have chosen to remove the photo montage until:

• its copyright status, flagged on its Wikicommons talk page, has been sorted.
• a selection of images more exclusively representative of the key themes and events of the decade has been selected, adopting a worldwide view
• images that would look good in a photo montage are adopted.

The photo montage, the first picture that hits readers as they come to the page, needs to be more than just accurate. Choosing images of certain events over others need to be defendable, and I find no reason why the stock market chart, the CD, the Simpsons image or the Hubble image need to be included.

Sorry if it sounds drastic that I took down your picture, but my earlier concerns have been neither refuted nor addressed. There are heaps of legit pictures out there, and I am sure we can come to an understanding. Kransky (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They should have pics.

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)

Read the above section regarding the montage. Pro66 (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested reform of decade articles

• The decade articles are a good idea, but have become unwieldly and their quality have thus suffered.

• I am not sure I agree with this, although as a generalization this can apply to a lot of articles. Currently they are largish outlines that link to other more in depth articles, which I think is a good idea and needs more expansion not less, although WP:V needs improvement, more references will help...Modernist (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sure - there can be more linked "in depth" articles, but I think the decade articles themselves should focus on broad themes. Do we need to list muralists in 1930s Kransky (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are referring to the importance of Mexican muralism of the 1930s and its effect on the art of the western hemisphere and the world, and it's effect on the politics of Latin America - Absolutely...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• We should only list the most important events and themes that took place in each decade.

• I don't think this is a good idea, WWI, WWII and the Great Depression aside, who decides what was a most important event?...Modernist (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I trust the Wikipedia community has the sense and reasonableness to decide what was important or not. Kransky (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• While I trust the community also - who speaks for the community? I think the establishment of the UN was an important event, guaranteed there are those in the worldwide community who disagree...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• We should aim to outline themes unique to that decade (banal text like in this decade the world shrank as new technologies allowed for the greater sharing of ideas. Women and minorities gained new rights. New fashions and tastes in music emerged. Blah blah blah could be apply for the 1890s just as it does for the 1990s)

• I agree with this idea. Improving the quality of the text, the accuracy of the writing, the specificity of each segment of each article can be improved. Rather than cut the articles up - make them better with improved scholarship and better writing. Above all reference sections need expansion..Modernist (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Would you support the removal of lists of politicians, sportsmen, musicians etc, to be replaced with articles on the politics, sport and music of a decade? Kransky (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• In principle it would depend on how much depth and quality those essays on sports, politics, and music had. How broad the scope, how neutral the content and how accurate the facts...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policies concerning adopting a worldwide view should prevail, with trivia and popular culture details scaled back (but not entirely limited).

• I am not in favor of this at all. The uniqueness of Wikipedia is it can encompass many sides to an issue. If the worldwide view can be added to a subject then it should be added. I do not see the American view or a western cultural point of view as either trivial or unencyclopedic. If there is another point of view to be heard then add it..Modernist (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do not consider an American or western cultural view to be trivial or uncyclopedic. I think trivia and pop culture references have their place, but should not dominate the article. Kransky (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am not convinced that cultural descriptions are not essential and crucial to understanding the basic precepts of particular people and a particular time, especially from a anthropological, sociological and encyclopedic view...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keeping in mind Antoine de Saint-Exupery's quotation that Perfection is achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away, with the consent of other editors I propose to brutally cut out a lot of extraneous text and try to make the articles trimmer and more focussed as above. Editors who want removed text retained would be encouraged to add detail to more specific articles (1870s in fashion, 1990s in video gaming etc)

• As I have stated above I am opposed to proposed unilateral cuts. Develop consensus for each change on the talk page of each article first...Modernist (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Any views? Kransky (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would probably adopt a BRD approach. Kransky (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think you should develop consensus first...Modernist (talk) 23:34, 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)

Establishing guidelines should come first

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:

• No bullets or lists. Everything needs to be in a prose format.
• Anything included should be of global interest. This will not prevent Amero-centrism or even a highly Occidental viewpoint, simply because of the heavy influence of the US and Europe, but if it is prestated as a condition, it will do much to reduce the inclusion of the trivial.
• As best as it can be determined, all information included should be of durable interest. Obviously this is not entirely possible to ascertain, but it should be the goal. When considering whether something should be included, we should ask ourselves: Will a reader 50 years from now, seeking information on the given time frame, care about this factoid?

These are just some thoughts that occur to me as sensible guidelines. I look forward to the comments of others. Unschool 01:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Unschool. But people are always aware of the events of the decade later some time after it ending. For example, I'm sure that article 2000s will be well done in 2010s but not now. James Michael 1 (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

Well I notice that we got rid of picture summeries of the decades. As such, I propose that we need to bring the pictures back as a way to improve it. Please respond ASAPSecret Saturdays (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus that montages are inappropriate, especially if there is any copyright question on any of the images combined. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with copyright-free montages as long as the choice of images is appropriate. Kransky (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kransky, I added a pd group of images to the lead of the 1940s...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright-free images are particularly unlikely in the 2000s; the copyright on each image has to be specifically waived, for the montage to be OK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional significant world-wide events

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)

"Interwar" period

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.

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)

The selection of notable events in the montage

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:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• File:Diana funeral.jpg
• File:Boris Yeltsin 19 August 1991-1.jpg
• 

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)

Not great, I am afraid

• The picture of a mounted sheep doesn't look like Dolly
• The picture of a 1980s style computer doesn't look like the internet
• The Hubble Satellite wasn't really that significant compared to other achievements. Really space exploration has been going down hill since Skylab
• The table of skulls doesn't look like Rwanda
• The Arafat/Clinton/Rabin photograph - maybe it demonstrates the (temporary) Middle East peace from 1993 to 2000 Kransky (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Very funny. Seriouslly though, do you have any specific changes you would want to see? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep all these images! They are fine the way they are. No changes necessary.CatJar (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if anyone else thinks differently. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Politics and WARS as first section?

What does that say about our culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.75.112.86 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Society" section

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)

No literature?

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)

Archive organization request

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)

Dead link

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!

• http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?020930fr_archive02
  • In 1990s on 2011-05-25 05:52:56, 404 Not Found
  • In 1990s on 2011-06-08 00:09:33, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Baby One More Time (1).jpg Nominated for Deletion

	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 What should I do?
	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)

books published in the 90's

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)

Infobox issue: Historically the Oslo Accords are politically insignificant, they were not implemented. The Dayton Peace Accord would be better to be shown. Also a picture of Nelson Mandela would be good to add

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)

This picture of the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian leaders signing the Dayton Agreement should replace the picture of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands over the Oslo Accords, Oslo was unfulfilled and war resumed between the Israelis and the Palestinians not long after and thus politically insignificant in the long-term.

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)

Picture of anti-Apartheid leader and first Black president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela. This picture should be included in the infobox with a caption on the end of apartheid. The image depicting the mourning of the death of Princess Diana should be replaced by this and the picture depicting the Rwanda genocide should be resized so that the picture of Mandela can fit into the infobox.

Oslo Accords - Bill Clinton

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)

The 90's isn't the last decade of the 20tt century

"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)

Versace "assassinated"?

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.

Mojowiha (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

[[User:Richardkeefe57

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)

Links

The second sentence is contradicted by the links to 20th century and Millennium. Rwood128 (talk) 13:26, 9 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)

Thanks for the advice. Rwood128 (talk) 16:48, 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. 173.11.183.118 (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)