Talk:Dynastic cycle

message: I'm a little uncomfortable with this page.
Stating the theory is fine, but the sentence "This cycle can also be applied to most major empires and dominant societies throughout history, in more or less altered forms", added by 71.14.80.3 as his/her sole contribution to Wikipedia in September 2005, seems both vacuous and meaningless, and is not supported by anything.
Bathrobe 06:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

message: Considering your edits, I really wonder who you are. If I'm correct, I believe you are a Mongolian who intended to insert the view that China was conquered and became a part of another state. The view you are trying to insert is of course a POV or a fringe view, and the large texts you inserted are based on personal opinions instead of an encyclopedic or academic manner, and tried to use Wikipedia article as a forum. While you do appear to have knowledge of history, your viewpoint is not at all uncontroversial. No one should be pushing their opinon or belief in articles here, and please try to communicate with other editors in order to not become so biased. I'm not going to fight with you by adding another text in articles, otherwise the article or Wikipedia in general will really become a mess, but this does not mean I cannot defend the text written above. The proper way for discussing such personal opinions is to discuss in the talk page here, not in the article itself. The article itself should reflect the NPOV view, not the view resulting from adding biased opinions. Any one who becomes so nationalistic should restrain from editing Wikipedia, at least until they are no longer so. If other people also become editing in the way you do now, there is no need to come to Wikipedia any more. For people who would like to defend Wikipedia, the only way will be to eliminate the current version by restoring the original (unbiased) version. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the reply. Now I see you do have a very original view to explain the history. The view itself can be remarkable and positive; nevertheless, it still belongs to opinion, even if it may be true. Wikipedia is however an encyclopedia and not a history paper that is intended to explain the truth or other views, and unless such a view becomes the concesus among historians, you can not write the encyclopedia based on such opinion (but may be reflected to some degree according to WP's policy). Also note that the Wikipedia should be in encyclopedic style that represents significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, not in a style that give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views, which is a requirement of WP's NPOV policy. If you want, you can publish history works to for example disgree with the theory of dynastic cycle, and see the responses from other historians or specialists. The Wikipedia will, of course, mostly reflect the current mainstream views from scholars. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for above comments regarding their inital status as Manchu state and later development. I agree it became understood as "Zhongguo" as they have borrowed Han Chinese imperial ideology. As for the article, I have put the texts into another section called "significance", and removed the details regarding international treatises, as they should not be the focus of the article. --173.206.13.33 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV view 

message: Eh, since the Republic actually declared its own era name, I'm not sure this is a legitimate point. Did they ever formally declare an end to the cycle and concept or didn't they still nominally claim the mantle? Meanwhile, the Communists very explicitly adopted the Western calendar, labelled the preëxisting customs noxious superstition, and proclaimed the establishment of a New China (新中国) to replace the old. — LlywelynII 16:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ...until the time of the Republic