Talk:List of incidents famously considered great blunders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Obsolete comments

This is an important topic. Just because you do not like the title does not mean that it should be deleted. For those who don't know, boner is another word for blunder.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana

We must learn from the mistakes of history so that we do not make them again. Also it may be good to discuss just how bad these mistakes were. Some so-called "great blunders" may be merely ordinary mistakes that historians or pop culture has given a bad rap. Hindsight is 20/20. - Pioneer-12

[edit] More Great Blunders (Unsourced)

Candidates for the main list. Unsourced entries can be placed here. However, a topic must be shown to be a blunder by an external source before being added to the main page. (This prevents arbitrary and POV listings.)

  • Unsourced entries on the main page should be moved here until sources are found.
  • Ideas are welcome! Feel free to add to this unofficial list. (This is a wiki, after all.)

Note that famous blunders that you believe to be untrue can also be listed. This article exists in part to combat common misconceptions by presenting an objective view of the event. - Pioneer-12 12:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military

OMG, that stuff about Hitler and oil, WOW sends shivers down my spine... Jaberwocky6669 02:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political

  • 1988 – Images of U.S. presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, considered weak on defense, riding in a tank looking silly in an oversized helmet were published.
  • 2004 – U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry defended a vote against $87 billion for the War in Iraq, saying, "I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." The line was seized on by opponents to paint Kerry as a "flip-flopper."
As the WP article says (emph added), this was "but one of the many causes of the American Revolution".

[edit] Diplomatic

If you hadn't misspelled it, you might have read the article (Zimmermann Telegram) and learned that Zimmermann's blunder wasn't in sending it, but in underestimating US capacity. It's also worth reading that article both for its intrinsic interest and to see what a quality WP article looks like.
see Munich Agreement
He was wrong, but it wasn't a blunder. It's interesting to note that Ronald Reagan later returned the sentiment with "They're going into the ashbin of history."

[edit] Business

This is slightly confused. IBM outsourcing OS development was no blunder. But giving Bill Gates control of the system he was paid to provide certainly was. But there's more to it than that. Gates lied to IBM, telling them he already had an (almost finished) OS. He then lied to SCP by omission, failing to tell them of his deal with IBM. Tim Paterson (later employed by MS, heh heh) of SCP had developed QDOS in 6 weeks by reading the CP/M manual. CP/M was written by Gates's friend Gary Kildall -- the two had a gentleman's agreement that languages were Gates's territory and OS's were Kildall's. So Gates engaged in at least three major ethical transgressions. And then there's the fact that his knowledge of IBM's interest in getting into the microcomputer business came via his mother's charity-benefit acquaintance with IBM exec John Akers. A fine example of capitalism in action.

[edit] Sports

[edit] Engineering

A friend pointed me to this article today. <>< tbc 04:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

The tower leans because it rests on a river bed; it would have leaned no matter what. It could hardly have been less of a blunder to not build it at all, or to build it somewhere other than next to the cathedral for which it's the bell tower. So what, exactly, is the blunder?
The Spruce Goose was not an incident, let alone a blunder. It might help to read the WP article.
  • 1950 - The grounding of the USS Missouri. Shortly thereafter an article in Red Star, a premire USSR military paper, ridicules the grounding.
The grounding is neither demonstrably a blunder nor famously considered such, and has no historical significance.

[edit] Not Blunders... or are they?

[edit] Misc

[edit] Hannibal spanks the Romans

  • 216 BC - On his day of command of the largest Roman army in history, 80,000 infantry and 7,000 horsemen, Terrentius Varro attacked Hannibal head-on at Cannae and was slaughtered.

The loss, I think, was more due to Hannibal's great skill then to any blunder on Varro's part. I don't think that it should be on the main page unless a first rate source claims it is a blunder.

- Pioneer-12 11:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Source: How Wars Are Won by Bevin Alexander, 2002, Three Rivers Press, New York, First Paperback Edition, pp. 274-276.
Varro foolishly made no analysis of the unorthodox Carthaginian formation, and simply perceived the infantry out front as a weak point his men could attack. This they did with their whole force, handily driving the Gauls and Spaniards back, just as Hannibal had intended.
...
In succeeding centuries, Cannae took on an almost mystical significance, becoming a sort of military Holy Grail, the highest and purest form of intellectual perfection in warfare. But it was difficult to duplicate what Hannibal achieved, especially wrapping both flanks around an enemy at the same time he was held in place on the front and attacked on the rear. Only an extremely obtuse commander could be induced to advance directly into a trap such as Terentius Varro entered at Cannae. Against a less gullible enemy, the more reliable method was to attack his front to hold him in place, and then move on just one of his flanks, as Frederick the Great did at Leuthen in 1757.
-Calmypal (T) 00:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Titanic

It's certainly a famous disaster, but where's the blunder here? Saying something is unsinkable and then it sinking does makes you look like an idiot, but it didn't cause the sinking. Maybe there should be a section for "statements that made people look like buffoons", like Al Gore inventing the internet. 68.6.40.203 10:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Pioneer-12 06:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Al Gore never said that he invented the internet, your statement makes you look like a buffoon.

The White Star Line never advertised that Titanic was unsinkable, so the sentence is inaccurate anyway. MechBrowman 04:11, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Snopes concludes otherwise. Also, Al Gore did say that as a Congressman, he "took the initiative of creating the internet." - Calmypal (T) 00:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
No, he did not say that. He said " I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." He said it, and it was true. The buffoons are those who change "create" to "invent" or "in" to "of", significantly changing the meaning of the statement. Gore may have spoken awkwardly, as we all do when speaking extemporaneously, but he did not make any sort of false or outlandish claim -- Gore was, in fact, the senator who pushed forward commercialization of the internet, as has been widely documented by non-buffoons, including Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, the actual inventors of the internet's TCP/IP protocol -- see, e.g., http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue5_10/wiggins/ -- "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development... there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening." 68.6.40.203 10:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power of United States in 1942

"I have the support of the greatest country on Earth." - Winston Churchill

Just because the United States did not dominate the world militarily, economically, and culturally in 1942 doesn't mean it couldn't be a major world power. Situated defensibly between two oceans, Mexico, and British-ruled Canada, the U.S. was a major industrial power. It was Thomas Jefferson's transcontinental empire of liberty with "every man a king", despite FDR's aspirations to the contrary. It had a gross domestic product of $1,435,000,000,000 in today's dollars, no small amount of money, and had been propping up England with intelligence cooperation and lend-lease equipment. I am not arbitrarily asserting this, it is the opinion of historians I cannot specifically remember. I'll try to find a source for that sentence, but leave it in. - Calmypal (T) 23:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree more or less, but I think the sentence is worded too speculatively right now ("would have" implies some sort of certainty that I don't think can be assigned to this statement). JYolkowski // talk 01:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem is with the tense. I don't think you're understanding my objection, Calmypal. You're using the wrong grammatical tense. Moncrief 01:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This conversation is bizarre. Even if Churchill was mistaken (and a claim that he was certainly seems POV), his statement was in no way a blunder, nor is it considered so, certainly not famously. And finally, no evidence has been offered that Churchill ever made the statement.

Please register and sign your comments instead of just posting them in italics. Use margins, too. Anyway, I was just offering the statement from memory as support for my assertion that the US was a force to be reckoned with before it won World War II. The statement was never being called a blunder. - Calmypal (T) 00:40, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
That makes no sense. This is an article about blunders, and Churchill's statement was offered up as possibly being one. This is not an article about the US or whether it was a force to be reckoned with, so assertions in that regard and support for them are irrelevant, unless they specifically pertain to whether or not something (Churchill making a statement, in this case) was a blunder. Also, since the merit of a claim is independent of the person who makes it, I don't think a signature contributes anything.
I originally wrote that seizing the Mid-East would have given Hitler a superb defensive position and "an empire comparable in strength to the United States," and Moncrief had a problem with the tense. The quote created dramatic effect. - Calmypal (T) 19:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, is that what you were talking about. It might have helped had you backreferenced the Churchill quote to the Hitler gaffe. As it is, this is the first mention of Hitler in this section. But I suppose, had I been sufficiently scrupulous, I could have ferreted out the meaning from your esoteric communication. Sorry for wasting your time (and mine).

[edit] Political blunders

Wow--the political blunders section actually looks objective. I'm impressed. Now, we just need some sources for those entries. In particular, sources that indicate that they are famously considered a blunder by people who aren't just trying to push their ideological viewpoint.

What's nice about political blunders is.... if a blunder contributed to the loss of an election, then both the candidate's supporters and opponents are likely to agree that it was a blunder.

We should limit the political blunders section only to incidents that lead to a loss of an election or to a resignation. Those are verifiably bad events and events of significance. Anything else is just a PR gaffe or a slander by ideological opponents.

- Pioneer-12 12:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Kerry's statement had any significant affect on the outcome of the election -- certainly not comparable to other entries; the claim that this is "famously considered a great blunder" is clearly POV (does anyone actually believe that?). Notably, people take actual changes in policy a lot more seriously than an apparent admission of flip-flopping that is clearly clumsily stated or taken out of context (both, in this case -- Kerry voted for a funded version and against an unfunded version). A far more serious blunder was Kerry's failure to address such attacks, or address them too late. Most widely viewed as Kerry's greatest blunder was presenting himself as a war hero of the DemNatCon, which opened him wide to the SwiftBoatAttack (attacking perceived strengths is a well known KarlRove strategy). The current entry just looks amateurish.

[edit] Overlap

Check out the lists on flop. JRM · Talk 17:23, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

This is a subset of flops. Only "flops" that were due to extremely bad decision making are included, not those due to bad luck, acts of god, strong competition, or some other factor.
I think blunder-based failures are the most interesting and educational types of failures... What mistakes did they make, and why?
- Pioneer-12 20:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

On April 21, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep (no consensus, rewrite, etc.). See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Title

[edit] The title is poor

The title is poor. List of great blunders should be fine. -SV|t|add 06:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I personally agree. The current title is to prevent the list from appearing to be POV. This seems to be a necessary compromise when working on in a wiki envirionment. Items are on this list only because they are famously considered to be blunders, not because the list's authors consider them to be blunders or not. The wordier, but more precise, title makes this explicit. See List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. - Pioneer-12 10:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The title is boring

change to List of great blunders or something else less bulky

you don't need to get this specific in the title - Stoph 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

How about changing it to Greatest Boners of All Time ;-) --Carnildo 23:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Problem is, that would violate NPOV - Wikipedia would be saying that the incidents are blunders, not that people call them blunders. I do like the Boners one... but that name might have been what got it on VfD in the first place. Nickptar 00:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I guess I don't make the NPOV distinction between "List of incidents famously considered great blunders" and just "List of great blunders." The former seems unnecessarily bloated. Of course there is no official way to determine a great blunder, but you can explain whatever you need to in the actual article. - Stoph 01:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Then what NPOV distinctions do you make? Do you make no distinction between "list of events famously believed to be miracles" and "list of miracles"?
Calling things "blunders" is always POV, just as it would be POV to say "Killing people is wrong" (even though most everybody agrees) - encyclopedias just don't do it that way. How about the difference between "List of people who have been called the Antichrist" (I'm pretty sure we have one like that) and "List of Antichrists"? Nickptar 15:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] maybe we should add this to the list

[edit] Wikipedia

  • April 25, 2005 - User:Pioneer-12 chooses to name the page for his list of incidents famously considered great blunders as List of the Greatest Boners of all time. Many users don't take well to the joke, and as a result of this poor naming decision the article was almost deleted. - (just kidding) Stoph 03:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
And despite their lack of a sense of humor, the page emerged victorious from the melee. And the forces of arrogant cluelessness, who would destroy anything they do not understand, have lost a battle to the forces of wisdom, logic, and understanding.
THE PAGE STILL STANDS, a beacon of hope to all who have felt the stinging attack of Wikipedia's ridiculous and unjust Vfd process. - Pioneer-12 06:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1993 Canadian election question

With reference to the assertion in the section on the 1993 Canadian election: "It did not help when PC Leader Kim Campbell posed semi-nude for a newspaper." Is there a source for impact on the election? The Google search is not very convincing. That she posed is not in question as per discussion and link to picture at Talk:Kim Campbell, the question is was it part of the blunder or does this distract from the issue of mocking of an opponent?--AYArktos 11:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

Worst of all, the intended pyschological impact to discourage the USA backfired into enraging the American population into waging relentless war against Japan in revenge.

I had question to raise: do you think there was a unique characteristic of Japanese military psychology that led them to believe that attacking the US would subdue it rather than enrage it? In other words, does this tactic seem like one that other powers/cultures in history would have engaged in, or or a way of thinking more distinctive to Japan? It was a mistake, in the end, but they probably had their reasons for thinking the way they did. (I realize this forum is a discussion of blunders not of history or cultural psychology, but for reasons of relevance I'm beginning the question here, and can move it to the Pearl Harbor article or elsewhere later.) --Dpr 16:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush...

...deserves a place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.241.245.49 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Bush knows what he is doing. He did not blunder whilst going into Iraq. He is intelligent and deserves some respect. --Yancyfry jr 18:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References - inconsistent style

I've just made a couple of additions to the page, with references. I should apologise for the fact that the only reference style I know how to do is different from that used previously on the page. So my references stick out like a sore thumb.

I will try to work out how to repair this. Sorry! Euchiasmus 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What you added are actually meant to be in a footnotes or notes section (even though they are called references), as contrasted with the general references not tied to a specific location in the text. --Blainster 21:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm fairly new to WP and have just re-read Wikipedia:Citing sources since there are so many variations of usage, deprecated constructs, etc. As a UK user, I find the use of the word Notes as a heading for one's cited sources to be rather strange. I would have called it References, and included a Bibliography section for sources not tied to a particular section in my text.
However, whatever we call it, the main aim is to be clear to the reader, provide verifiability, and avoid ugly inconsistencies of style within any one article, as well as following the WP guidelines. Thanks for your help with this. Euchiasmus 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Trojan Horse

This isn't even real. Why are we putting fiction here? I'm taking this out, but feel free to state your caseOreo man 22:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another naval blunder?

I think the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Eilat (October 21, 1967) counts as a great naval blunder. "Anti-ship missiles? We see them. Can't we just dodge?"

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1997/autumn/s&d1-a97.htm for the details.

[edit] Redirect

List of the Great Boners of all time redirects here. Could someone remove that? --Yancyfry jr 18:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a redirect because it was the original title of the article. The primary definition of the problematic word used to be "mistake or blunder" before it acquired its more common present meaning. --Blainster 22:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here expecting an entirely different list. Is something broken?

[edit] Terminally USA-centric

Does nobody make big blunders in the rest of the world? The sporting ones are particularly centred on one country's sports. No blunders in the olympics? The football (soccer if you must) World Cup? Cricket? Rugby? Anyone?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders_9701.html"