Talk:October 25

1945
In 1945, Japan surrenders Taiwan to the Allied Powers and Republic of China. Japan would not surrender to China alone had Allied power not participated in the pacifica war. China never ever demonstrated the power to win the sino-Japanese war. Merely stating Japan surrendered Taiwan to China is neglecting the fact that China accepts Japanese surrender under the authorization of General MacArthur's general order number one. Therefore, to say that Japan surrendered Taiwan to China is a sheerly a POV.Mababa 18:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * That the ROC was an allied power is implied. If they surrender to the ROC, then they are already surrendering to an allied power. Saying they surrendered to both the Allied Powers and the Republic of China as if they were mutually exclusive is misleading and wrong. The only allied power that got Taiwan surrendered to it was the ROC, not the others and the ROC. There's a difference between surrendering and formal transfer of sovereignty if that's what you're trying to dispute. The sentence does not imply the latter. The subject here is Japan's surrender, not China's acceptance of the surrender. We need to emphasize or not emphasize certain things depending on subject. --Jiang 19:20, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US diplomat George H. Kerr was there as well and signed on the surrender documentation. Kerr also make specific description that the surrender of Taiwan was a joint Sino-American occupation in his memorior, Formosa Betrayed. Please take a look at the book if you have time. Then you will understand, from the view point of a legality, that your paragraph was not true. The description of "Japan surrendered Taiwan to China" is a POV and it is wrong and misleading. Sovereignty does not have role in our discussion here.Mababa 20:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's not too much work, I'm interested in some quotes. I read part of the book but not the part you're referring to. The Allied command asked that the Japanese forces surrender to the Republic of China in Taiwan as it also instructed them to do in mainland China. It was a command but nevertheless the truth. How's "The Republic of China takes over administration of Taiwan following Japan's surrender to the Allies"? The current form is not grammatical and slightly illogical. --Jiang 05:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I would have to admit that I can not find the text of instrument of surrender in English anywhere on the net. I get this information from Kerr's book's description " In this unpleasant atmosphere we began the 'joint Sino-American occupation of Formosa. From the very beginning the problem of ........many more to come." in his chapter 76. This was stated in Kerr himself's words and I believe he used the term joint occupation with a reason. Secondly, this was described in a letter to the news paper. Thirdly, looking at the picture in Chong-Shang Hall, Taipei 1945, you will see that the national flag from allies are also hang in front of the ceremony. It is therefore obvious that the surrender was not to China only. I guess one of them should be the yong Kerr. I would be curious about why US choose to neglect their role in adminstrating Formosa as well. However, I am not a historian and I can not afford investing time doing such an individual research. Also, not fullfilling adminstrative role does not mean not having a legal responsibility. To my understanding, US tolerated Chiang since they want a serrogate to encrouch the spread of communism. Hoever, US never recognized the sovereignty claim of Taiwan from Chiang's ROC. The position is that ROC is a legal administrating government on Taiwan through occupation. Given the plethora documents left by Kerr, I would assume the description of US role on surrender instrument in the letter have basis and is not made up. These questions can be easily answered if one can pull out the english version of the instrument. I hope I have answered your questions. As for today's POV dispute, I would still insist that the surrender is not to China only, otherwise the allies's flags would not be displayed. To say that Japan surrender Formosa to China would be more misleading than say to China and the allied powers. Not be mislead by the chinese sign which states that they were observing as guests. ROC government has something else in their mind already.Mababa 10:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I have done my best trying to dig out the english version of the instrument of surrender signed in Taipei City Hall (Now Chungshan Hall). I also searched by General Rikichi Ando, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, and Chen Yi. Nothing useful came up. They must have hidden it. If you are satisfied by my explaination so far, I would like to remove the NPOV sign in the article. Also, please take some time to decide what do you want to do with Ma Yingjeo's page. Many thanks.Mababa 05:02, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kerr is only one person so not everything he says is balanced or entirely true. The picture posted showed only one American flag in the room (and also note that a KMT flag was also posted, in addition to the ROC flag). I have nothing to comment on your explanation of the instrument of surrender. I didnt even know one specifically existed for Taiwan. I don't think my proposed text above contradicts the information you have given so I will add it. --Jiang 03:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your proposed text works fine. Thanks for your modification.Mababa 08:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would add that Kerr not only being a witness in the surrender ceremony bu also was a diplomat equipped with training of international laws. He understood his duty and carried out his duty. His record indeed reflects his own point of view. However, it sould be weighed for heavier than other people. As for the flags in the picture, you missed the England one. Supposely there should be another different one at the pillar opposit to the side where England flag was displayed. Anyway, perhaps a entry of Japan surrender in Taipei city hall can be initiated.Mababa 06:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Debut of Led Zeppelin
Why shouldn't Led Zeppelin's gig at Surrey be included as a significant event? If a concerto by Tchaikovsky is considered an 'event' a landmark event in rock should be as well. Embele (talk) 06:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The better question is why should the Led Zeppelin event be included. There is nothing that makes the first performance of a particular band an historic event that has long term global implications.   The Tchaikovsky performance is not a notable event either but we can't compare one event to another when trying to establish suitability for this list.  These lists do contain items that do not belong, but the newest always get noticed first.  This event has no significance except to the fans of the band.  It is nothing more than trivia.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So I've come very late to this little chat, and I find it ironic that I was browsing the OTD for today and found it very boring, so I tried the talk page, and sure enough, there were a few interesting items. I had fun figuring out how to link to the article sections, so that was worthwhile, and the only other observation I would like to make is that I find the premier of a great piece of music, or the beginning of a great band's public performance career to both be notable events that I would like to read about.  For me, it's not just about wars, politics, etc...  Just sayin'.....Cellodont (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Mets Win Game 6 of 1986 World Series
This is in the top 10 Notable Sports Events of all time, the mets came from behind to Win against the Red Sox, after a ball slipped through Bill Buckners Glove, why isnt it posted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.122.117 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2010
 * Sporting events are generally not considered notable. From WP:DOY:
 * Sport records – unless they are significant world records (speed) or social precedents (e.g. first black man to play in MLB)
 * Winston365 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we want to add World Pasta Day?
Just found out about this. Seems it might be legit.

http://www.pasta-unafpa.org/pasta-day.htm

Thanks! WesT (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:DOY.  Swayback Maru Mufka's alternate account (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Another one... a well-meaning editor has a suggestion for an inclusion that might brighten up someone's day, and what's the answer? "No"  ...Well, I wikilinked to the relevant article, providing a harmless alternative solution.Cellodont (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Zinoviev letter
I've toned down the entry on the Zinoviev letter. The original entry:
 * The forged Zinoviev Letter is published in the Daily Mail, wrecking the British Labour Party's hopes of re-election.

is almost entirely unsupported by the linked article. The article describes the Bennett paper as the 'definitive account' of the affair, and this concluded that it can't be known who wrote it - making the statement of 'forged' unwarranted. The article also says that historians generally agree that the letter did not affect the election; Labour was doomed anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 13:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca Pidgeon - born twice
I noted that British-American actress Rebecca Pidgeon's birth appears in "On This Day" twice, under both October 10, 1965 and October 25, 1965. I quickly found references from reputable and usually reliable sources for both of those October days (IMDb and FilmReference.com respectively). The latter source notes that the year may be 1963 or 1965. Actresses (and actors) have been known to adjust the year of their birth in opposite directions very early and much later in their careers, but don't simultaneously adjust the day of the year by an insignificant 15 days. Does anybody have a tie-breaking independent source to resolve this contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisJBenson (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Hallowing of Nestorius"
This is a liturgy, not a holiday or observance. The article itself should perhaps be subsumed into the Nestorius article, but in any case it should be omitted here, leaving the Mar Nestorius. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

H & O - Day of the Basque Country
linked to the article about national days which doesn't mention Basque Country. No article or mention anywhere afaik. should be deleted. --142.163.195.253 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)