Talk:Blunder

Chess blunders
Perhaps move the chess discription later to a seperate page and list famous chess blunders like Karpov against Kasparov. - Pascal

And Kasparov against deep blue. - Pioneer-12 02:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical judgements
I doubt these examples can be considered NPOV. - Montr&eacute;alais 01:47 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * I added some weasel words. How's that? Spalding 16:20, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see that's not good: Avoid_weasel_terms. But until someone figures out a better way, I'll leave it for now. Spalding 16:23, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this page looks POV to me. The list of blunders does. Some of the history of the word might be interesting, though I'm not sure whether that isn't a dictionary definition. "Wikipedians are invited to" is not thing that belongs in a wikipedia article either. Martijn faassen 10:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This random collection adds nothing to the article and I have removed it. I have reproduced here so that it can be put back if anyone strongly disagrees. A full list of events that "may be considered to be blunders" would run to pages and page. I don't understand why the following merit particular mention.


 * Examples of things that may be considered to be blunders include:
 * Specific actions, like the Tea Act of 1773, in British policy toward the American colonies before the American Revolutionary War
 * Decision making prior to World War I
 * Mussolini's decision to ally with Hitler and subsequently to invade Greece
 * The Japanese attack against Pearl Harbor
 * U.S. policy during the Vietnam War

--Etimbo | Talk 14:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Examples of blunders are important. No explanation is complete without a good example. These would have to be cleaned up slightly first, though.


 * Giving a few examples does not imply a full list. The place for that is List of incidents that have been considered great blunders, which aims to deal with famous blunders in an encyclopedic way. However, the criteria for inclusion on that page are rather strict to prevent it from running pages and pages and to prevent arbitrary listings. Only specific events or decisions famously considered to be blunders are listed, and sources are required for all listings. NPOV is maintained by summarizing the opinions of both sides if the nature of the blunder is disputed.


 * So, do these "blunders" qualify? Hmm.... "Decision making prior to World War I" and "U.S. policy during the Vietnam War" are simply too vague. "Mussolini's decision to ally with Hitler" is probably not famous enough (And I suspect only a token minority think it's a blunder, anyway). "The Tea Act of 1773 (and related British policy decisions)" and "the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor" are definate candidates. I'll add them to the waiting list for that article. - Pioneer-12 02:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy?
The origin of the word blunder is from Thomas Saint Blunder, from the town of Blunder, who was Patron Saint of "things going wrong". Why has this not been mentioned in the article?