Although I like the daily history update sometimes I find small events mentioned, and big events forgotten. Today is a perfect example as its the 100 year anniversary of the Republic of China and the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. Instead we get a CSK takes oath of office in 1943...15 years after he united the country and pretty much always retain supreme power over it... Just a rant.

Huh? Today commemorates the 100 years since the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. Where do you get this 1943 thing from? Taiwan years are measured since 1911, not incr 1943.

For those that dont know about Taiwan (ROC) independence day, you might find this video interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CA95UV_yLfI

Dont' know if my memory is right, but I thought that Oct. 10th 1911 was a critical period for the revolution and not actually when the government fell. The R.O.C. was actually declared established on January 1st 1912 by Sun Zhong Shan.

Granted, that doesn't mean that today isn't still the 100 year anniversary for the R.O.C., which was kind of a madhouse here in Taipei.

雙十節快樂！

The histories are not always the most relevant or interesting, it's true. They're just what we could compile from some very brief research in order to complete the project. I'm not sure if we could make them more interesting enough to be worth making an interface for users to help add to them, but that's one way to go. If you see some that are wrong, you can send us a feedback and we can edit them for next year.

I would suggest against allowing users to add and edit histories without some type of moderator approval. Especially on a site dealing with Chinese, you're likely to get some very politically driven histories and depending on how they are written they could have the potential of inflaming one group or another.

Definitely need a moderator, otherwise the forum will quickly turn into a political debating arena (which I would happily join I'm afraid) and we might get history updates like 'October 10 2011: The day after Jiang Zenmin raised from the dead'.

So what people are saying is that skritter users are incapable of having a reasond logical discussion regarding facts about history? (:

@董雅各 there always lays the problem, 'facts'. Yea a logical discussion should be possible but the history update can only show one point of view (human facts are still a point of view), always upsetting one side. For example, I study at BLCU in Beijing and there are many foreign people there who come from a background where reasoned logical discussion is not the basis but rather a strong but not researched belief for something.

And we cannot all enter museums or go dig stuff up together so facts will always be opinions in this world.

I think on Skritter you're gonna get better discussions though than the comment section below CNN articles.

@Elwin. If you accept that there is a real world then it must follow that there are facts about it not opinions. The problem is realizing what these facts are. Everyone agrees on most of the facts of history, but of course it's the ones where people don't agree that are the most interesting.

However, the main problem in these cases is not because of insufficient information (though of course that may also be a problem)but that the facts are obscured due to ideology, power relations or common (usually unfounded) assumptions that everyone has.

@Antimacassar that's an interesting point you make, basically we have the same opinion but our post is about different things. I think I was on the philosophical/psychological side this time, pointing out why discussions like this will always include less rational replies.

'but that the facts are obscured due to ideology, power relations or common (usually unfounded) assumptions that everyone has.'

Yes, and this basically makes facts opinions in the human world, doesn't it? Technically for us maybe not true, but in reality, yes. Sigh.

'Everyone agrees on most of the facts of history'

Maybe, maybe not, and although I totally totally understand it, my post is about that on every fact you will find people that disagree with it. And especially when it comes to politics.

I'm also the kind of scientific rational thinking person, but just wanted to make clear that there are many people ready to prove you wrong on even the most obvious facts. How do they prove it? Well, by CAPITAL letters and lovely @%#$!&@)# words ;-)

Do I mean to say you cannot think of Ahmadinejad as an idiot? No I don't!

Anyhoo, dare to get that OT forum section rolling, Skritter guys?

@elwin (human facts are still a point of view)

I am guessing you are not a native English speaker, I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it means. The word "fact" describes something that is true not something that is subjective.

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

Haha I know that it's described as such, I'm just being rather philosophical. You have to question yourself, when you would say 'the fact is that on October the 10th...' and someone else disagrees, you still have two opposite opinions.

It's very interesting then, for e.g., that people who deny the Holocaust can be jailed, and I do agree with that policy in Germany. So yes, facts by the democratic majority of people do exist. And then I think we're on the same line.

Because of elevating my post it's become a little bit vague, but my main point was to make clear that you can never expect a reasoned logical discussion on politics and history on any forum, there's always a good chance of inflaming one group or another, as Josh said.

Truth exist separate from ideology, feelings and opinions.

When you step in front of a truck, you will be smashed, whether you are a American, German, Buddhist or Jew.

How we perceive fact and truth does not alter it (No need to go into QFT here:)

How we perceive history happened does not alter it. It happened in one specific way. No democratic majority or one person minority can alter it. All they can do is try and influence how we think about it or remember it.

I am not saying that a debate on history would be easy. But it should be possible. Unfortunately very few people is capable to reason logical. Mostly because we are indoctrinated by a post-modernistic society where everyone is right. When everyone is always right, it is very hard to admit that you are wrong.

We would rather say in a very fake humble voice, we can never truly know. Then we can still be right in our own little world. We are programmed not to admit that we are, or can be, wrong. Because once we start down that road we have to admit to sin. Not unlawful against the majority of the democratic nation, but sinful. And we can not have that in earth's name!

Facts are not subjective or nor are they debatable. Please stop trying to dilute the english language. If you change the meaning of the word "Fact" to the word "Opinion" we will have to invent another word to mean "Fact".

@Elwin. I think that if we cant have a reasoned debate on history/politics without people getting pissed that says a lot about us. When you see people discussing sport in such detail and with such passion it seems sad that we cant do the same about politics (which, lets face it, is a lot more important).

@aharlekyn.

I accept your point about truth being separate from opinions etc. But notice that I used the word obscured which is why I disagree when you write that "No democratic majority or one person minority can alter it.". Although it's technically true that they don't alter history, in reality governments, the whole PR industry and many other bodies are trying to do that (with no small success) i.e. shape people's opinions about historical and political events, which at the end of the day basically amounts to changing history.

To take a concrete example that is hardly controversial, take a look at the invasion of Iraq. When it was first announced it was because Iraq (supposedly) had W.M.D., but now the official line is that it was democracy promotion (don't laugh please...). The facts didn't change but the PR did. It's up to us to try to work out what is the correct interpretation, not an easy task when the government is willing to lie to you to serve its own ends.

Also, I don't see how sin is related to right and wrong. It's a religious concept.

@董雅各 I'm not trying to dilute the English language, I'm sure most languages include the word that has the same meaning as the English word fact. What I'm trying to say is that human beings make most 'facts', someone needs to decide what's a fact or not to be able to name it a fact, right? You can go as far as to say that facts don't exist or even that life might just be a dream.

So I'm fine with the definition of the word fact, if someone gets hit by a truck and I'm there, in my mind it's a fact he got hit by a truck. But when people need to find out about history through people's oral or written stories or even scientific evidence, it will always end up in debate.

If your sentence was 'So what people are saying is that skritter users are incapable of having a reasoned logical discussion regarding history?'
I would have just agreed :).
But I reacted on 'facts about history', because it's an interesting combination of words.

@Antimacassar: I agree with you. As I said: Governments, PR, the majority or anyone change your point of view. But they do not actually change the truth or facts. Only your perspective of it. If you want to, I would like to discuss the relation between wrong and sin with you. Drop me an e-mail aharlekyn at gmail.com .

@ Elwin: So If you get hit by a bus and get splattered all over the pavement and the bus driver did not see you, and nobody else did see you, the fact that you existed and was on the road that time is not be a fact. If no one is in the forest to hear the tree fell it is not making a noise... right? (Sorry for the graphic example. I really don't wish you that... Even if it would make my argument the valid one then :)

I do agree with you, however about 'facts about history' being an interesting combination of words. History is facts. If it is not facts, it is not history, but rather a faulty view of the history.

Lol good example. It's our perception of things that have happened which we like to name as facts. Perception always comes between what we see and the fact. That's where I'm pointing to, the definition of fact is not important, but like I said in my initial post, human-percepted facts (gotta name it something) that are basically 99% of the kind of facts we're talking about all the time. And for me, personally, that's typical when it comes to facts about history. Doesn't mean I don't believe anything in history, but I'm just saying that it allows for lots of heated sensitive discussion, which I don't mind.

Resolved.

'facts from history' not 'facts about history'

:D

Ok then, deal :D