Talk:Year Zero (political notion)

Calendars
should timelines have zero or not and if not how would bce (bc) and bc (ad) be seperated?

Where used?
Where is the term 'year zero' used in this way? I'd never heard of it. Is this specifically a US thing? (a frequent problem on Wikipedia.) If so, that should be mentioned. DirkvdM 07:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It says in the article, the Khmer Rouge regime used the term.

This article should have the term in Cambodian next to Year Zero (in parentheses). Most other pages that deal with terms originating in other languages have the term in the original language listed (such as many German words used by the Nazis or for their WWII vehicles). --Thirdmoon 06:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's specifically a US thing or it is specifically an, US thing. Khmer Rouge never attempted to implement a new beginning of numbers for years and neither did the French Revolutionists. It's a term dreamed up by the American owned Associated Press and it's world wide subsidiaries in order to foster complacency among The People that ois rationalized under the false notion that it is necessary to stabilize US Constitution. Distinguishing a before and after timeline does nothing to erase the past, quite contrary to the propaganda, Christ's birth is used to keep better track of all the futures that become the past. The Associated Press uses their viewpoint that religion is the enemy to Peace and prefers that viewpoint as opposed to admitting the Truth, that it is the Male gender that is the major obstacle to Peaceful Civil Societies. The "year zero" is nothing short of the same male beliefs which assassinated Kennedy, dreamed up the term "normative constitution" after deciding a Constitution defines an unwritten document, and it's the same male beliefs that perpetuates hysteria against Muslims; which is responsible for the terrorist acts against Europe and US. It's a cover meant to incite fear within the mind of the masses so that We will overlook the actions Our government takes that are the root cause the zealots who have become so desperate and antagonized in their own land by the foreigner that they begin a fight they call Jihad.


 * There is a major distinction between the Jihadees who fight for the sovereign freedom and liberty to practice their belief in God and their right to worship as they deem fit, and the male Jihadists who believe all who refuse conversion to Islam should be put to death


 * The latter is distinguished from the former, yet the latter is exactly equal to the male need for domination and subsequent foolishness that first penned the year zero propaganda. -Dirtclustit (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

'Year Zero'
The Naomi Klein link is inappropriate, being a link to a highly subjective, non-academic, and self-serving 'theory'. The inference that there is a parallel between the Khmer Rouge policies and those in Iraq are anti-intellectual and counter-factual. It is the kind of edit which turns wikipedia into a vehicle for proselytising, and gravely undermines its credibility. It should be removed.

122.49.175.165 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed Naomi Klein from the section on Year Zero, and stated the basic principle behind the idea as destroying society then rebuilding it from the ground up. The US has employed no such policies in Iraq, and most of the deaths there are because of factionalist violence and the continuing insurgency. I think that the Cambodian Genocide is a completely different situation and if somebody has read Naomi Klein's book then feel free to disagree and point out why it belongs in the article.

Bbcrackmonkey 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with posters above. But leave the reference to Nine Inch Nails in. It's the kind of comic moment for which Wikipedia has been justly mocked. To turn from a discussion of a genocidal concept which links the French Revolution, the Cambodian slaughter of millions, and even the Cultural Revolution in China, to a fan's note about a rock band. Leave it in. Profhum (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your post. Is that supposed to be sarcastic, or do you really think we should leave in a quote purely because it's a bad idea?  Personally, I believe the fact should stay there as it is, in brief, to correctly link the album people know to the events on which it is based; a very brief explanation and link is appropriate here.  However, as the rest of the page is (hopefully) developed, the Nine Inch Nails bit shouldn't be expanded.Eebster the Great (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)