text:
Initiation (Todd Rundgren album)

Initiation is the sixth album by American musician Todd Rundgren, released May 23, 1975 on Bearsville Records. With this album, Rundgren fully embraced the synthesized prog sound he had begun exploring in more depth in his work with his band Utopia. However, unlike Utopia, in which Rundgren had limited himself to playing guitar, much of the synthesizers on Initiation were played and programmed by Rundgren himself.

Content
At over sixty-seven minutes, Initiation is one of the longest commercially-released LPs. Due to a plastic shortage, in order to keep the album on one vinyl LP, Rundgren had to limit and EQ the master so the bass response was rolled off to keep the grooves small enough to cut onto a single disc; he also had to speed up the first half of Side One (Real Man-Eastern Intrigue) and speed up the entirety of Side Two to eliminate 2-3 minutes from each side (5). The album's original inner sleeve included a note which stated: "Technical note: Due to the amount of music on this disc (over one hour), two points must be emphasized. Firstly, if your needle is worn or damaged, it will ruin the disc immediately. Secondly, if the sound does seem not loud enough on your system, try re-recording the music onto tape. By the way, thanks for buying the album."

The titles and concept are taken directly from Alice A. Bailey's book A Treatise on Cosmic Fire.

Critical reception
In The Illustrated New Musical Express Encyclopedia of Rock, Nick Logan and Bob Woffinden wrote, "Initiation (1975), despite the pretentious flirtations with half-baked versions of Zen Buddhism and Alice A. Bailey's "A Treatise On Cosmic Fire" that influenced his lyrics and Eastern mystic scores, contained a perceptible undercurrent of his former melodic invention while one could ascertain traces of self-parody and wry humorous debunking of what Rundgren appeared on the other hand to be holding up as valid. At a shade over one hour Initiation is also amongst the longest albums ever made, evidence of his engineering abilities, if not his sense of self-control".

Influence
When asked if Rundgren had influenced his music, with perceived influences of Initiation on Queen Elizabeth and Rite², Julian Cope responded that he and Thighpaulsandra loved "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire", "but we both bemoaned the fact that it was recorded so long before ambient music had been defined that Todd treated it as an ever-evolving, almost prog-rock piece. We both loved huge elements of that piece but found that we never listened to it. So we tried to build that Todd-like transcendence into our own piece of music [with Queen Elizabeth]."

Track listing
All tracks are written by Todd Rundgren.

Side one
 * 1) "Real Man" – 4:25
 * 2) "Born to Synthesize" – 3:40
 * 3) "The Death of Rock and Roll" – 3:48
 * 4) "Eastern Intrigue" – 5:06
 * 5) "Initiation" – 7:05
 * 6) "Fair Warning" – 8:07

Side two
 * 1) "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" (Instrumental) – 36:00
 * 2) * "Intro - Prana" – 4:27
 * 3) * "II. The Fire of Mind - or: Solar Fire" – 3:43
 * 4) * "III. The Fire of Spirit - or: Electric Fire" – 7:34
 * 5) * "I. The Internal Fire - or: Fire by Friction" – 20:16
 * 6) *# "Mûlâdhâra: The Dance of Kundalini"
 * 7) *# "Svâdhishthâna: Bam, Bham, Mam, Yam, Ram, Lam, Thank You, Mahm"
 * 8) *# "Manipûra: Seat of Fire"
 * 9) *# "Anâhata: The Halls of Air"
 * 10) *# "Vishudda: Sounds Beyond Ears"
 * 11) *# "Ajnâ: Sights Beyond Eyes"
 * 12) *# "Brahmarandhra: Nirvana Shakri"
 * 13) * "Outro - Prana"

Personnel
"Real Man” (Recorded at Secret Sound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals, guitar, piano, synthesizer, RMI Keyboard Computer, ARP String Ensemble, percussion
 * Moogy Klingman – RMI Keyboard Computer
 * Ralph Schuckett – clavinet
 * John Siegler – bass
 * Kevin Ellman – drums

"Born to Synthesize” (Recorded at Bearsville Sound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals
 * Roger Powell – synthesizer treatments

"The Death of Rock and Roll" (Recorded at Mediasound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals, guitars
 * Ralph Schuckett – clavinet
 * Rick Derringer – bass
 * Kevin Ellman, John Wilcox – drums

"Eastern Intrigue” (Recorded at Secret Sound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals, electric sitar, electric piano, RMI Keyboard Computer, ARP String Ensemble, additional percussion
 * John Miller – bass
 * Roy Markowitz – drums
 * Lee Pastora – congas, bongos
 * Barbara Burton – percussion
 * Roger Powell - nose flute

"Initiation” (Recorded at Mediasound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals, lead guitar, clavinet, synthesizer, RMI Keyboard Computer, ARP String Ensemble
 * Bob Rose – rhythm guitar
 * John Siegler – bass
 * Rick Marotta, Bernard Purdie – drums
 * Lee Pastora – congas
 * David Sanborn – saxophone solo
 * Roger Powell – synthesizer solo

"Fair Warning” (Recorded at Mediasound Studio)
 * Todd Rundgren – vocals, piano, electric sitar, RMI Keyboard Computer, ARP String Ensemble
 * Moogy Klingman – organ
 * Rick Derringer – guitar
 * Dan Hartman – bass
 * Chris Parker, Barry Lazarowitz – drums
 * Edgar Winter – saxophone

"A Treatise on Cosmic Fire" (Recorded at Secret Sound and Bearsville Sound Studios)
 * Todd Rundgren – all instruments
 * Roger Powell – synthesizer programming, "creative assistance"

Production
 * Todd Rundgren – writing, production, arrangement, mixing, and engineering ("Real Man", "Born to Synthesize", "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire")
 * Jack Malken - engineering (all other tracks)

Charts
Album

"Real Man"

title: Initiation (Todd Rundgren album)


text: User talk:69.210.92.6

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:69.210.92.6


text:
Drapetomania

Drapetomania was a fake mental illness that, in 1851, American physician Samuel A. Cartwright hypothesized as the cause of enslaved Africans fleeing captivity. This hypothesis was based on the belief that slavery was such an improvement upon the lives of slaves that only those suffering from some form of mental illness would wish to escape.

Cartwright specifically cited the tendency of slaves to flee the plantations that held them. Since slaves happy with their condition would not want to leave, he inferred that such people had to be sick, impervious to the natural order of things. He published an article about black slaves' illnesses and idiosyncrasies in De Bow's Review. Contemporarily reprinted in the South, Cartwright's article was widely mocked and satirized in the northern United States. The concept has since been debunked as pseudoscience and shown to be part of the edifice of scientific racism. A slave's desire for freedom is not pathological.

The term derives from the Greek δραπέτης (drapetēs, 'a runaway [slave]') and μανία (mania, 'madness, frenzy').

As late as 1914, the third edition of Thomas Lathrop Stedman's Practical Medical Dictionary included an entry for drapetomania, defined as "vagabondage, dromomania; an uncontrollable or insane impulsion to wander."

Description
Cartwright described the disorder—which, he said, was "unknown to our medical authorities, although its diagnostic symptom, the absconding from service, is well known to our planters and overseers" —in a paper delivered before the Medical Association of Louisiana that was widely reprinted.

He stated that the malady was a consequence of masters who "made themselves too familiar with [slaves], treating them as equals".

"If treated kindly, well fed and clothed, with fuel enough to keep a small fire burning all night—separated into families, each family having its own house—not permitted to run about at night to visit their neighbors, to receive visits or use intoxicating liquors, and not overworked or exposed too much to the weather, they are very easily governed—more so than any other people in the world. If any one or more of them, at any time, are inclined to raise their heads to a level with their master or overseer, humanity and their own good requires that they should be punished until they fall into that submissive state which was intended for them to occupy. They have only to be kept in that state, and treated like children to prevent and cure them from running away."In Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro Race, Cartwright says that the Bible calls for a slave to be submissive to his master, and by doing so, the slave will have no desire to run away: "If the white man attempts to oppose the Deity's will, by trying to make the negro anything else than 'the submissive knee-bender' (which the Almighty declared he should be), by trying to raise him to a level with himself, or by putting himself on an equality with the negro; or if he abuses the power which God has given him over his fellow-man, by being cruel to him, or punishing him in anger, or by neglecting to protect him from the wanton abuses of his fellow-servants and all others, or by denying him the usual comforts and necessaries of life, the negro will run away; but if he keeps him in the position that we learn from the Scriptures he was intended to occupy, that is, the position of submission; and if his master or overseer be kind and gracious in his bearing towards him, without condescension, and at the same time ministers to his physical wants, and protects him from abuses, the negro is spell-bound, and cannot run away."

Prevention and remedy
In addition to identifying drapetomania, his feeling was that with "proper medical advice, strictly followed, this troublesome practice that many Negroes have of running away can be almost entirely prevented". In the case of slaves "sulky and dissatisfied without cause"—a warning sign of imminent flight—Cartwright mentioned "whipping the devil out of them" as a "preventative measure".

Contemporary criticism
While Cartwright's article was reprinted in the South, in the northern United States it was widely mocked. A satirical analysis of the article appeared in a Buffalo Medical Journal editorial in 1855. Renowned landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, in A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States (1856), observed that white indentured servants had often been known to flee as well, so he satirically hypothesized that the supposed disease was actually of white European origin, and had been introduced to Africa by traders.

The contemporary southern intelligentsia regarded Cartwright as a fringe figure. Stephen Jay Gould identified Cartwright as "a prominent Southern physician" with the caveat that Cartwright's defenses of slavery constituted "an extreme within the range of 'scientific argument'" that was not typical and likely paid little attention by "many intelligent Southerners."

title: Drapetomania


text:
Hollywood Airport

Hollywood Airport may refer to:

 * Hollywood Burbank Airport, a public airport in Los Angeles County, California
 * Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport, a public airport in Broward County, Florida

title: Hollywood Airport


text:
Jacklyn Zeman

Jacklyn Lee Zeman (March 6, 1953 – May 9, 2023) was an American actress who portrayed Bobbie Spencer on the ABC daytime soap opera General Hospital for 45 years.

Early life and education
Zeman was born in Englewood, New Jersey, to a family of Jewish descent. Her parents are Rita Zeman-Rohlman, a magazine supervisor, and Richard S. Zeman, a systems engineer. She grew up in Bergenfield, New Jersey, and completed her high school studies at age 15, at Bergenfield High School, after which she studied dance on a scholarship at New York University. She was a Playboy Bunny at the Playboy Club in 1972.

Career
Zeman had several small parts before landing a regular role in the ABC daytime soap opera One Life to Live playing Lana McClain from 1976 to 1977. Later that year, she was cast as Bobbie Spencer on the sister-soap General Hospital, a role she played on a regular basis until 2010. Zeman received three Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series nominations and one Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series nomination for her role. Since 2013, Zeman appeared on General Hospital on a recurring basis. ABC Broadcasting Network paid respect and homage to Zeman, whose character Bobbie Spencer was also killed off on the show. The soap "killed off" Zeman's character in 2023, and honored both the character and actress during the week of January 10, 2024 when they aired Bobbie's funeral and memorial service.

Outside soap operas, Zeman appeared in the 1982 comedy film National Lampoon's Class Reunion and had a cameo in the spoof comedy film Young Doctors in Love. She starred in the made-for-television movies Jury Duty: The Comedy (1990) opposite Heather Locklear and Montana Crossroads (1993) opposite Kellie Martin. She performed in off-Broadway and other productions including Come Blow Your Horn, Barefoot in the Park, and The Boy Friend. Zeman received another Daytime Emmy Award nomination for her regular role as Sofia Madison in the streaming series The Bay in 2021.

Personal life
Zeman was married three times and had two daughters, Cassidy and Lacey, from third husband Glenn Gorden. Her first husband was Murray Kaufman, known professionally as Murray the K, a DJ. Her second husband was Steve Gribbin.

Zeman was a close friend of GH co-star Shell Kepler (nurse Amy Vining). Zeman delivered a eulogy at Kepler's funeral.

Zeman was also close to GH co-star Anna Lee (wealthy matriarch Lila Quartermaine), to whom Zeman paid tribute in 2004, prior to Lee's death. She stated that Lee had been like a "surrogate grandmother" to her, both on and off the camera: "I have great respect and admiration for Anna Lee personally and professionally. She was always a pleasure to spend time with both on and off the set. I still think of her often and I feel blessed to have experienced her friendship and her amazing sense of humor. I miss her beautiful smiling face."

Zeman died at Los Robles Hospital & Medical Center in Thousand Oaks, California, on May 9, 2023, at age 70, after a short battle with cancer.

title: Jacklyn Zeman


text:
Keith Alexander (Manitoba politician)

Arnold Keith Alexander (June 12, 1921 – December 18, 1972) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba from 1958 to 1966.

Born in Russell, Manitoba, Alexander was educated at the University of Manitoba. He served as a pilot in the Canadian Armed Forces from 1941 to 1954. After retiring from the armed forces, he farmed in the Tummel area of Manitoba until 1969. The following year, Alexander became a United Church minister.

Alexander was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the 1958 election, defeating incumbent Liberal-Progressive Ray Mitchell by 198 votes in the constituency of Roblin. He was re-elected by a greater margin in the elections of 1959 and 1962, and did not run in 1966. He served as a backbench supporter of Dufferin Roblin's government thorough his time in office.

He died in Kenville, Manitoba at the age of 51.

title: Keith Alexander (Manitoba politician)


text:
Judaeo-Georgian

Judeo-Georgian, known endonymically as Qivruli (ყივრული ენა) and also known as Gruzinic, is the traditional Georgian dialect spoken by the Georgian Jews, the ancient Jewish community of the South Caucasus nation of Georgia.

History
Georgian-speaking Jews maintain one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world. The most popular theory on the origins of Georgian Jewry is that the first Jews in Georgia arrived 2600 years ago after escaping Babylonian captivity.

Relationship to other languages
Judaeo-Georgian is the only Kartvelian Jewish dialect. Its status as a distinct language from the Georgian language is the subject of some debate.

With the exception of a significant number of Hebrew loanwords, the language is reportedly largely mutually intelligible with Georgian.

Distribution
In the beginning of the late 19th century, there were large Jewish communities across Georgia, including Tbilisi, Kutaisi, and Tskhinvali in South Ossetia. Small Jewish communities existed across almost every part of Georgia with a synagogue in nearly all villages and cities. The religious leaders of these were referred to as rabini or xaxami, the Georgia term for 'rabbi' and 'wise', respectively.

Judaeo-Georgian has approximately 85,000 speakers. These include 20,000 speakers in Georgia (1995 est.), and about 59,800 speakers in Israel (2000 est.). The language has approximately 4,000 speakers in New York and undetermined numbers in other communities in the United States, Russia, Belgium, and Canada.

Status
Judaeo-Georgian is, like many Jewish languages spoken there, on the decline in Israel. Its status in Georgia itself is unchanged, except by the rapid decline in the size of the language community, due to emigration beginning in the 1970s, which has seen the departure of some 80% of the community. Authoritative studies of its continued use by other expatriate communities of Georgian Jews have not been conducted.

Sample text

 * English : All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood
 * Judeo-Georgian : עוואלה הדהמיהני יבהדאבה תהוויסוּפֿהלי דה תהנהסצוֹרי תהוויסי גֿירסאביתה דה וּפֿלאבאבית. מהת מינישצאבוּלי הכּוות גּוֹנאבה דה סינדיסי דה ארתמהנאתיס מימהרת וּנדה יכּסתאוֹדנאן דזמוֹביס סוּליסקוואתאבית
 * Latin transliteration : Qvela adamiani ibadeba tavisupali da tanasc̣ori tavisi ɣirsebita da uplebebit. Mat minič̣ebuli akvt goneba da sindisi da ertmanetis mimart unda ikceodnenʒmobis sulisḳvetebit
 * Georgian transliteration : ყველა ადამიანი იბადება თავისუფალი და თანასწორი თავისი ღირსებითა და უფლებებით. მათ მინიჭებული აქვთ გონება და სინდისი და ერთმანეთის მიმართ უნდა იქცეოდნენ ძმობის სულისკვეთებით

title: Judaeo-Georgian


text: User talk:216.254.13.6

title: User talk:216.254.13.6


text:
Tønsberg Fortress

Tønsberg Fortress (Tunsberghus festning) was a medieval fortress and castle, located in Tønsberg, Norway which was defended by the fortress for over 300 years.

It includes ruins from Castrum Tunsbergis, Norway's largest castle in the 13th century, originally built by King Håkon IV, the grandson of King Sverre.

History
Dating in 871, Tønsberg is commonly believed to have been the oldest Norwegian town and one of the oldest recorded fortified locations in Norway. According to Snorri Sturluson, Tønsberg was founded before the Battle of Hafrsfjord under which King Harald I of Norway united Norway under his rule. Tønsberg was an important trading center and site of the Haugating, the Thing (assembly) for Vestfold and one of Norway's most important places for the proclamation of kings. In the 13th century, King Haakon Haakonson built a castle, Tunsberghus, at the location of the modern Tønsberg municipality. It was located at what was formerly one of the most important harbors in Norway. The castle was greatly expanded during the reigns of Håkon Håkonsson and Magnus Lagabøte, who added large walls, towers, residential halls and a church. The last king of a fully independent Norway, Håkon V Magnusson, died at the castle in 1319.

Only a few ruins of the fortress remain today. The modern-day tower (Slottsfjellet i Tønsberg) was raised in 1888 as a memorial of the historic fortress. In 1971, local authorities improved the insulation. At that time new plaques were mounted inside the tower. On the sides are the gilded signatures of three modern Kings of Norway: Haakon VII (1 August 1906), Olav V (1 July 1958) and Harald V (9 March 1992). The plaque over the entrance reads:

Chronology

 * 871 - The commercial town of Tunsberg existed. It served as a stronghold for the Ynglings, who first came to power in Vestfold in this period.
 * 11th century - The commercial town and fortress at Tunsberg, on the Oslofjord outdistanced Skiringssal as a trading center.
 * 1201 -  Sverre Sigurdsson, king of Norway from 1177–1202, was attacked in Oslo by combined forces from the Oppland, Viken, Telemark and Tunsberg. Although they outnumbered Sverre's forces, they were defeated by Sverre's superior tactics. One of their ablest leaders, Reidar Sendemann, took refuge in the heights of Tunsberg mountain. In September 1201, Sverre lay siege with a force of 1000 men, forcing their surrender after 5 months. Unfortunately for Sverre, he took ill in the siege and returned to Bergen only to die later in 1202.
 * 1253 - Haakon Haakonsson, king 1217-1263, constructed a castellated wall around the mountain and provided support buildings within the fortification.
 * 1253 - Successfully resisted attack by Danish forces.
 * 1261 - Magnus Lagabøter, king of Norway 1263-1280, brought his bride Ingeborg of Denmark to live in the castle.
 * 1319 - Haakon V Magnusson, king 1299-1319, the last of the Harald-lineage (Haralds-ætten) lay ill and died at Tønsberghus.
 * 1335 - Magnus Eriksson, king from 1319–1374, was wedded here to Blanche of Namur, who received the castle as a gift from her husband.
 * 1387 - When the castles were no longer occupied by Norwegian royalty, the most important lords were the governors of the four chief Norwegian fortresses, Tønsberghus, Akershus, Båhus, and Bergenhus.
 * 1503 - As the Kalmar Union collapsed, Norwegian attempts to rebel were suppressed by Danish forces. Tunsberghus fortress was destroyed by Swedish soldiers and disloyal local peasants.
 * 1856 - Tønsberg Maritime Club built a wooden watchtower which burnt down in 1874.
 * 1888 - Tunsberg Slottsfjellet, the present tower was built.

Slottsfjellet Museum
Slottsfjell Museum (Slottsfjellsmuseet) was established in 1939 as the Vestfold Fylkesmuseum. It is now an associate of Vestfold Museum (Vestfoldmuseene). The exhibitions in the museum present Vestfold's cultural history with particular, emphasis placed on whaling and shipping, urban and rural history in Vestfold  to World War II

Other sources

 * Gjerset, Knut History of the Norwegian Peoples (MacMillan, 1915)
 * Larson, Karen A History of Norway (Princeton University Press, 1948)

title: Tønsberg Fortress


text:
Talk:Vasily Sokolovsky

Untitled
Is this the same Sokolovski who commanded the Kalinin Front during theSecond Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive and the Battle of Velikiye Luki? — B.Bryant 04:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Andreas 10:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is he listed as a Russian Jew? His surname may sound Jewish, but it might just as well be Polish. Bahavd Gita (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

David Glantz states that Sokolovsky was recalled from command of Western Front and summoned to Moscow in February 1944 because of the failure of ten offensives on his Front over an eight month period. Zhukov (whose Chief of Staff Sokolovsky had been) had to step in to personally take charge of the front. Glantz surmises that this was covered up later because of Sokolovsky's subsequent rise. Can anyone shed any light on this? If confirmed, it should be included as a matter of record. Analogue70 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very delayed, but here's some extra info. Glantz is referring to some of the newer archival documents, the "Доклад Комиссии ГКО тов. Сталину" date 11 April, 1944 if I understand correctly. The official report by was compiled by a Special Commission to investigate the Western Front's poor advance in the last half year, despite being very well equipped. D2306 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vasily Sokolovsky


text: User talk:84.9.53.36

title: User talk:84.9.53.36


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep (no consensus, rewritten, etc.). Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

List of the Great Boners of all time (now List of incidents famously considered great blunders)
This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. These tables are discouraged in all but the most extreme cases. I believe this thread has become sufficiently confusing to justify it. The purpose of the recap table is to allow users whose votes are unclear an opportunity to be more specific. The use of the recap table does not replace the obligation of the deciding admin to review all the cBold textomments and to interpret them appropriately. No attempt is made in the table to identify sockpuppets or to match the times of the votes to the then-current version of the article.

In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. For this to work, please keep all comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just to reiterate, this table is to be taken with particular caution, as many of the votes refer to a version of the article that has since a) been renamed and b) been re-written and c) tripled in size and d) totally changed character. Indeed these things happened because of those votes. Hence, please ignore the table and just keep the darn article :). Pcb21| Pete 21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Votes
The content of this list is inherently subjective and the title needlessly flippant if not deliberately provocative. Mackensen (talk) 04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the majority of these votes refer to the old version of the article. The article has since been completely rewritten. The title is no longer provocative. The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic. The article is compliant with NPOV policies as stated in NPOV. Similar articles exist and have been proven encyclopedic after Vfd discussion--for example: List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. - Pioneer-12 23:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic" is merely your opinion. That's not an objective fact.  Moncrief 23:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * ....fine. But it is an opinion based on a careful reading of Wikipedia policy. I believe that it is an opinion conforming to both the letter and the spirit of the policy. - Pioneer-12 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: the page has been updated again and renamed again. This should (I think) fix any remaining objections. - Pioneer-12 16:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with List of military disasters. SV|t|add 07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting idea, but the scope of the article is different. Not all disasters are due to blunders, and not all blunders are military disasters. By the way, if this article is deemed deletable, then that article will be have to be deleted too. - Incidentally, this article has much stricter criteria for inclusion then that one. - Pioneer-12 07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally POV topic. "Boner" is an uncommon word for "blunder" or "mistake" even if we found a way somehow to make it non-POV. Really should be a speedy delete in my mind. Moncrief 04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No kidding...especailly since that's got a very different meaning at least in American slang. I was quite relieved when I saw what was actually in the article. Delete. Meelar (talk) 04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) (Note: I have seen the rewrite and still think this is way too broad and nonencyclopedic. Delete.)
 * Delete: I think the title is hilarious, unfortunately I can't think of any way to call this a keep. - Stoph 04:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ron Jeremy. Delete. POV, not possible to complete list, very unfortunate title. android↔talk 04:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote change. android↔talk 02:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, no vote change. My vote will not change unless I explicitly change it myself. Consider this vote a delete vote for the current "revote" and any and all subsequent "revotes." This is getting ridiculous. android↔talk 15:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Many words have different meanings and this one was in common use in the USA 30-40 years ago. It is a great category. If we have to, let's move it to a new name: Blunders. I would readily change the name to keep the topic. --Blainster 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you suggest we get around the fact that any list such as this will be POV? Moncrief 04:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your objections are quite valid as the article stands, but this is too important a topic to let die. See the Santayana quote on the article talk page: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --Blainster 08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That doesn't solve the problem of the title being inherently POV, and the content being original research. Who decides which blunders were the greatest of all time? android↔talk 04:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oolon Colluphid. ☺  You didn't ask who decides what actually is a blunder. Uncle G 04:53, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * I can see this one is going down. I can't believe no one else sees the value in this. Of course there are others who have done this research. Rest assured it will be resurrected in an acceptable form in the future. --Blainster 08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * People write books on "greatest" blunders. (I have ISBN 720522527716, I wish I'd never said that: Everlasting gaffes of the famous, in my hand right now.)  They aren't encyclopaedias; and their selection criteria are for amusement, rather than for informational, value and are highly biased and arbitrary. Uncle G 15:06, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
 * Keep in [present form subject to two provisos. The article should be edited in such a way as to make the association between each listed incident and the cited authority crystal-clear. One good way is the traditional research citation form: "(David Saul, 1998)" inline with the incident, with the full reference below. This will make it easier to monitor the article and prevent insertion of unsourced items, which is a real concern. For example, it was agreed to keep List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder on condition that every item be sourced; nevertheless, people continually add names without sources, or with assertions that sources exist ("so-and-so's bipolar affliction is well-documented in biographies, interviews, and liner notes). The second is that the article be watched and any unsourced entries be gently but firmly removed until sources are provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. This used to exist under the title "List of Flops" (or something similar), which was broken up into seperate lists for politics/military/whatever.  This is just redundant.  Merge what can be merged into the flops articles, and redirect/delete.  I've read Pioneer-12's arguments that this is different from flops, and I just don't agree.  It's cutting way too fine a line to start distinguishing between flops and blunders.  (Are we also going to start distinguishing those from bombs, chokes, failures, muffs, flubs, and plain old fashion mistakes?)  comment by Lifefeed who forgot to sign his/her vote
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete. The content of this list overlaps greatly with other lists, particularly List of commercial failures, List of political flops.  I might suggest that List of military failures might be a good list to start from the content not covered elsewhere, but as it stands, the category is simply too broad. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

The following block of votes all refer to the old version of the article and the article has been renamed and completely rewritten to address these concerns. (See commentary section below.) It is asked that they be revoted in light of the new article. (If someone wants to leave their vote how it is, that's fine.) - Pioneer-12 06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, if you want a revote, DELETE THE GODDAMN THING. --Carnildo 06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. That would be against the GFDL. The history must stand. - Pioneer-12 06:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, inherently POV, much like the "worst US president" list. Rhobite 04:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Comment: Nobody is under an obligation to re-vote every time you change the page. My vote remains the same. Rhobite 06:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Feco 04:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, unmaintainable list. Megan1967 05:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Firebug 05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic -- Egil 05:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Certainly much improved. This article belongs somewhere, though not necessarily in Wikipedia. I am very concerned as to how it can be made NPOV. At the very least, we need to require citations for all entries and come up with a rule, as we did for example at Republican/Democrat In Name Only, as to what constitutes adequate citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV and original research. --Carnildo 06:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's deliberately trying to be an innuendo. And failing. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks a whole lot better, and the innuendo is gone. Mo0 [ talk ] 03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV. When Time Magazine did an Internet poll for "worst idea of the 20th century," thousands of anti-Israel people organized a campaign for the Balfour Doctrine. We could expect similar political battles with this topic. Mwalcoff 08:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredemably POV, not encyclopedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Expand Add '2004 the creation of this list' - only kidding, (but I might not be - it's as legitimate a POV as any of the other entries) it shows how subjective it is - delete--Doc Glasgow 09:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - definitely provocative title, definitely POV and definitely potential POV-pusher magnet. There may be some sense in writing about famous failures or something like that but I do not think that Wikipedia needs streed cred vocabulary for that - the term "failure" or maybe blunder is enough. As long as we can agree on what constitutes a failure (beyond "did not work as expected or planned") - Skysmith 10:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inherently POV. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN, funny as hell. Great Boners, lol. Grue 19:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete inherently POV. Thryduulf 08:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten and retitled version if it is realistically expandable. Thryduulf 01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rename. Compare List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever. If we have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest movies we should have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest boners. It's just a matter of a more precise name. Honestly, how many people would be clamoring for deletion if it was called "Great Blunders of all time"? The title may shock some people at first but potential offensiveness is not grounds for deletion--Wikipedia is not required to be nonoffensive. It's sad and disappointing that most people can't get past their initial perceptions of the name and look at the actual content of the article. - Pioneer-12 20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's the inhereent and unavoidable POVness of the topic rather than the trying-to-be-funny title that are the cause of the page of Delete votes here. Moncrief 20:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia regularly lists opinions and states that they are opinions. In fact, it is Wikipedia policy to do so. The article just must be careful to indicate that these are subjective opinions and also opinions of significance. (See NPOV.) Notice how the movie list has criteria for inclusion to make sure that only reasonably famous claims are listed. A similar method can be done here. The list of blunders is grounded in fact decause the negative outcomes are a matter of record; it is the quality of the decisions that led to those failures that people disagree on. We can list famous blunders and present both sides of the table so that people can get a multifaceted view of the event. (Which will counter the one-sided views presented in most lists of this type.) I think this article can evolve to become the best on this topic and one that Wikipedia will truly be proud of. - Pioneer-12 21:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming you believe the above, why didn't you originally (a) name your article something that reflects that you are presenting opinion and not fact?; and (b) why did you use the word "boner"?  I actually see the value in the re-named article, but your insistence on using the word "boner" (despite its overwhelming semantic entailment to mean penile erecetion rather than blunder) makes me suspect your motives.  I edited the newly-titled article a bit.  I want to see if you change it back to the more POV/"boner" version or not before I consider changing my vote.  I also won't change my vote until the re-named article has "blunder" in the title rather than "failure."  Blunders and failures are not the same thing, and this article is about blunders.  Moncrief 21:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually prefer a title that is a combination of what Nickptar and Pcb21 have suggested: List of incidents that have been considered great blunders. A bit long, but precise. - Pioneer-12 22:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of incidents that have been considered the worst blunders ever or something less clumsy. Only the title and wording of the article are POV; the idea is good. Nickptar 20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * (Forgetting about the use of the word "boner" for the minute). There seems to be a whole stack of "inherently POV" votes. Are people's memories really so short. We have solved exactly this problem several times before. The movies solution is a case in point. The list should consist of things other people have called the greatest mistake, assuming a good number of these things exist. On the other point, "boner" is a terrible choice of word and would obviously have to go in the rename. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy to attach numbers to how good a movie is, and the "best movies of all time" article reflects that. It's harder to attach numbers to how bad a movie is, and the "worst movies of all time" article is notably lower-quality.  Once you move into the realm of general human affairs, how do you come up with any sort of objective criteria? --Carnildo 22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Greatness" of movies is relatively easy to quantify compared to, er, bonerness of decisions. The list is just too wide in scope to be meaningful. Even without the unfortunate original name. FreplySpang (talk) 21:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've looked at the rewrite and my vote stands. FreplySpang (talk) 02:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I noticed that List of the Great Boners of all time has been moved to List of failures that have been considered the greatest ever. But the content has not changed, and thus I attached the latter to this VfD. I still think this material is POV and unsourced. Zzyzx11 | Talk 21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying "people think X", if people actually do, documentedly, think X, is not POV or unsourced. Calling them actual "failures" is still a POV title, though. I've been bold and moved to List of incidents considered great failures. Nickptar 22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally opinionated Saopaulo1 21:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comment - I've done the relevant renaming and removal of source-free data points... thing is the list is now empty. I have found a couple of potential book sources but is a nightmare searching on the web for relevant terms... I urge those hoping to make an interesting little list out of this article yet to join and find some well-sourced blunders! Pcb21| Pete 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The list is no longer empty; I've added a couple of sourced entries. Hopefully their presence will inspire people to add more. - Pioneer-12 01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The name has been changed and the article slightly expanded but the fundamental problems with this "list of" article still have not been addressed. Frankly, I don't think they can be addressed and still keep this an encyclopedia article.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 05:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What "fundamental problems"? Every issue that has been raised has been solved. Name? Changed. Sources? Added. Criteria for inclusion in the list? Clearly stated. NPOV? Complaint with Wikipedia policy. I don't see how anyone could object to this article now. This baby is a future "Featured article" candidate. I think it's time for a revote. - Pioneer-12 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the new article, could be a good start to a referenced, encyclopedic blunder list. Grue 11:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to ensure this doesn't end up back in the Blunder article (see ) --Etimbo | Talk 14:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Such lists are generally wrong. This one is too stupid in addition. Pavel Vozenilek 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * After considering the changes, my vote stands unchanged. --Carnildo 23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As does mine. This is still not encyclopedic. — Trilobite (Talk) 02:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to List of battles widely considered to be clear failures or somesuch. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 04:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but isn't the compilation and management of this list still entirely dependent on POV? Master Thief Garrett 06:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Only to the same extent that every article is dependent on POV. Pcb21| Pete 10:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this article is inherently POV and is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. I have to confess that I think the list of movies considered the greatest ever should be deleted on similar grounds. Rje 11:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that may be true, but a deletion attempt for it will similarly get you five pages of argument... BUT, I should add, if this gets the cut then the greatest movies ever article MUST ALSO go so as to be fair, along with any similar ones. We cannot mercilessly kill some POV "all-time-great" lists but allow some others to remain. So *if* this is deleted then you should start a deletion poll for that (as soon as possible) and cite this discussion as a source/reason/etc.
 * The movie list is even more potentially damnable, as every person has their own opinion of the movie greats, and every person thinks one or two of the supposed "greats" sucked. And we undoubtedly have some users/visitors who would (perhaps subtly) reword bits so as to make their favourites "better" and the ones they hate less important. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, the fundamental point about the movie article (and Wikipedia in general) is citability. Pcb21| Pete 12:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, I now formally cast my vote. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We have several lists of flops, see Category:Flops and the two items currently in this article were already tried once and deleted as too subjective and POV. More comments below. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * With regard to lists, all of them are controversial because on the one hand (bad) they tend to be a form of original research, and they tend to be based directly on the opinions of the editors who are involved; on the other hand (good) the better lists are consensus opinions of knowledgeable editors. The de facto behavior seems to be that we do keep "good" lists where the list has enough research and work in it to seems reliable, not totally subjective, and interesting. IMHO this one doesn't.
 * Another de facto criterion is that Wikipedians prefer lists for which there is some more-or-less objective criterion for inclusion—so that different editors have a better chance of agreeing on which items belong—and lists where the criterion is clean enough that one can at least fantasize that the list could someday be "complete" and guess at the total number of items a complete list would eventually include. Lists that would never include more than 5 entries are silly, and so are lists that would include more than 1000.
 * IMHO this list has no clear criteria for inclusion and is essentially open-ended.
 * IMHO the best chance of making this article encyclopedic would be to make it a compilation of the opinions of at least three list-of-flops or more authoritative books books. For example, restrict it to being a list of military blunders and have the article give an identifying description of each blunder followed by brief identifications of the books that call it a blunder, with appropriate short quotations. E.g. "Maginot line: XYZ calls it 'the stupidest French blunder of WWII' but PQR claims that it was really a big success because so-and-so-and-so..." Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for explaining your concerns. However, none of them is a valid reason for deletion of this article.

 * (1) First of all, ! Good suggestion ! The criteria for inclusion have been updated to reflect what you have suggested. An item will have to appear in a list of blunders by a respected authority in order to qualify for inclusion on the list. This should: (1) make determination of fame/notability ultraprecise and unequivically objective, (2) make the list confirmably "completable", (3) stop silly arguments on what qualifies to be on the list before they begin, and (4) make everybody happy.

 * (2) The list is not "original research". No original research says "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This article is simply reproducing published research. We're not going out and conducting interviews or doing experiments to get information for the article. We are merely combining information from existing sources. Every Wikipedia article does this. If we couldn't do this then you'd have to delete every single article on Wikipedia. Also, "Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers." That's what we are doing! The evaluation and analysis of the so-called blunders come from secondary sources which are cited.

 * (3) Yes, it's currently a stub, but we're supposed to expand stubs, not delete them. This article has tremendous potential. if it is given a chance to expand. - Pioneer-12 15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep the list as it is currently rewritten has a good potential to become an interesting resource. Its certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and it has been the subject of several books. The article title is stupid, it should probably be "List of historical blunders", but regardless of title the idea is very valid imo. ALKIVAR ™ 09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 *  Delete . Redundant with the already existing List of military disasters and others. --cesarb 14:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * A disaster is not the same thing as a blunder. A disaster is a bad event; a blunder is a bad decision. They are two distinct, if sometimes overlapping, categories. A military disaster could be due to bad weather, a brilliant move on the part of the enemy, general lack of ability, or simply the presense of an overwhelming enemy force. For example, the French forces at the Battle of Agincourt couldn't maneuver properly due to the muddy conditions, and they lacked a weapon with the range of the English longbow. There were two major reasons for the defeat, yet neither of these reasons were blunders. - Pioneer-12 15:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You convinced me that the overlap is just partial, and the list seems to keep getting better every time I look at it. Changing to keep, and I pity the poor soul who will do the closing of this VfD. --cesarb 21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thinking better, delete as per User:Meelar on the other page. --cesarb 22:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep in its current form. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - Stoph 02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inevitably POV. Listing a budget vote in the senate and a campaign appearance (both coincidentally by two members of one U.S. political party) together with military slaughters demonstrates the problem. -Willmcw 08:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In its current form, the article is a well-sourced neutral POV summary of critical opinions on an interesting topic. --Jacobw 09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think that Pioneer12 has inadvertently clouded the issue through his, erm, non-traditional approach to revoting. Needless to say that should NOT be considered when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Pioneer12, I know you didn't mean any harm, and you've clearly learned your lesson--but for future reference, if you rewrite an article up for VFD, a good approach is to send a note to each person who voted via their talk page, politely letting them know you've rewritten the article, and inviting them to reconsider their vote. I've found this to be a very effective method. (You need to contact each voter directly, because most people don't monitor the VFD pages where they've already cast their votes.  --Jacobw 09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has a reasonably NPOV title and a reasonable NPOV content. Reasonably useful as well. Sjakkalle 12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete too difficult to verify, uninformative. —Wahoofive (Talk) 16:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand new version. Or give it a try, at least - it might not work out. Vote updated in table as such. Nickptar 00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pioneer12's obsessive behavior has certainly clouded the issue, but I find the article duplicative, NPOV, and sloppy. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not only is the list as-is pretty much inherently POV, all future edits will be as well. It looks like an endless running sore of reverts and adjudication - for a bit of trivia. --Dcfleck 12:22, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * keep 192.23.43. 65 11:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Does not appear useful, a magnet for POV content (see the political section). Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep This is an interesting list and as long as the items in it are factually correct I see no harm in gathering trivia like this. Indeed I see good. This vote applies to a version (10 minutes before this time stamp) which from my POV is not POV. -- SGBailey 11:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Excellent article in its current form. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I first looked at it a few days ago, I didn't think it was saveable; but with the current title and the new content, it's looking quite good.  Antandrus 04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * keep --AYArktos 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

COMMENTARY
Why this article is not POV.

I think I know where people are going wrong in their assessment of this article.

Inclusion on the list is based on fame. We have other lists of famous things. For example List of famous experiments. In fact the inclusion of anything in Wikipedia related to human activity is based on fame. Why do we have a listing for Thomas Edison and not for Joe Schmoe, even though Joe Schomoe might have invented a mousetrap in his garage? Because Edison is famous and Joe Schmoe isn't.

I think the misperceptions people are having is that "listing something on this list means that Wikipeida is saying 'X is a blunder' ". NO! Listing something on this list implies that it is famously considered to be a blunder. The list itself makes no verdict on the "blunderness" of the action. That is why the Maginot Line is listed even though many people feel that it was the overall strategy, not the Line itself, that was the blunder. The listing for Maginot Line indicates this, and many people who read the entry will go away thinking that Maginot Line itself was not a blunder after all.

The opinions listed are not those of the authors of the article, but rather those of historians and culture in general. Thus it is noted that the Maginot Line is "widely considered" to be a blunder, but it is also noted that many historians think differently. The opinions of the wiki-authors are not stated.

We list famous blunders on Wikipedia for the same reason we list famous "urban legends" and famous unproven theories on Wikipedia--not because they are objective truth, but because they are well known, and thus worthy of note.

- Pioneer-12 09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You have a very good point there, but it's still very dangerous. Not as to the genuine contributors who will add things after researching, nono, but the other people who will come on and add obscure things, or things that didn't fail, or add Bush Jr.'s war in Iraq just because they hate Bush (leading to a five-page "did the war REALLY fail?!?" thread on the Discussion page) and so on. I can see you've thought out this idea, and it's a good idea too, but we must be very, very careful of opening POV loopholes. I hope you understand...
 * And, as it stands, currently the "Delete"s are winning. Master Thief Garrett 11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I share your concerns. The war in Iraq is a good example. The war was clearly successful from a military point of view as it toppled Saddam with a very low casualty count for a war of that magnitude. I'm sure some people will try to claim "Nono, it was a blunder about weapons of mass destruction!" Let them make the claim. (They make the same sorts of claims all over wikipedia, so why not here?) If would have to pass a consensus of wiki editors to make it on to the article page. If it does, it will clearly be stated that this is a famous opinion, but a minority one. However, I think that not being listed in an non-political collection of blunders will disqualify it from the article page.

 * Hmmm, perhaps the page restrictions should be tightened to include only blunders that have made it on to respectable blunder lists. (As Dpbsmith suggested.) That would certainly keep the politically motivated crap off of the page.... and also stop most of the silly arguments before they are started. Any truly notable blunder will be in one of those lists anyway. So, ultimately, the page content will be unaffected. Ideally, the page should simply contain verifiable famous blunders (as it is now), but there is a childish minority that will try to abuse any wiki page or policy to promote their ideology. So we simply let respected authorities in the field determine fame/notability for us. Ingenious!

 * OK, if the page is changed to include only blunders discussed in significant lists of historical blunders (a number of lists are already mentioned on the page), will you vote to keep it? - Pioneer-12 14:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * (Oh, and the deletes are winning the battle, but the keeps will win the war. "What does not kill me only makes me stronger.")

 * To be quite honest, Pioneer 12, if you had originally started the article that exists now, with that sort of title and without trying to be cute/funny with the "boner" thing, then I do believe you would be able to keep your article. But you didn't go that route, so I guess you're right that you'll have to try again after this effort is deleted.  Live and learn, right?  Moncrief 16:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * It sounds as if you feel that the article has been revised to deal with your concerns. So does that mean you are changing your vote? Or would you simply nominate the article for Vfd again, claiming "previously deleted"? - Pioneer-12 23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am NOT changing my vote. I will change my vote when I change my vote.  Moncrief 23:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, the joys of democracy. "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!" But, with any democracy, the majority rules. While I agree with your explanation, and that would certainly make the article much more viable and less vulnerable to POV than it is now, the problem is that if you recreate a page such as this *most* of the people who have voted here will merrily re-vote claiming this deletion as "proof". Master Thief Garrett 00:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if that's directed to me. What I would need before I could even begin to think about changing my vote is some kind of acknowledgment/remorse about the "boner" fiasco.  Moncrief 01:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's illogical. Then you are basing your opinion on an old version of the page and not the current version. We don't vote for a page based on what it was; we vote based on what it is and what it can be. Frankly, I am surprised that more people didn't see the inherent value in this subject from the get-go.

 * Why should I have apologize to you? This isn't about your opinions of me. This is about your opinions of the page. Apologizing or even asking for an apology makes it personal. It does not matter if you think I'm a genius or an idiot. What matters is what you think of the page as it is now. (Which is a collective work; I am but one contributor.) Is the current content acceptable or not?

 * At this point, it seems as if some are looking for excuses to justify deleting this page. A page should not be deleted unless a clear, logical, objective, consistent, policy-compliant reason is given for deleting it. I ask you to look at page now and base your opinion on the page as it stands now.

 * I really think all of the objections and discussion have helped make this a better page. I think everyone who initially objected should be proud to now vote keep and say "I helped turn a poor page into a great one." This page now has incredible potential for greatness and I thank you all. - Pioneer-12 05:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes you are right. I myself *may* rethink my vote. Maybe. Master Thief Garrett 06:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it help you to know that you have changed my mind? Your statements convinced me that a strincter policy of inclusion could make the article better. - Pioneer-12 07:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REVOTING
Please note that User:Pioneer-12 has been removing people's votes from this page. RickK 06:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * (I've moved this part of my above post here) Removing people's old votes and saying they should re-vote may cause some people to take unintentional offense as if you're exerting some sort of "power" over them. Master Thief Garrett 06:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not been removing people's votes from this page. I have merely been stating that they need to be revoted. Isn't there a simple Wikipedia policy about calling for a revote? - Pioneer-12 07:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. --Carnildo 07:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? Nothing like "If the title of the page has changed and the content extensively rewritten to deal with objections and concerns, then it is possible to call for a revote. The revote must be seconded by one person who has changed their position on the article from Delete [old article] to Keep [revised version]. This prevents frivulous revotes." That just seems like common sense.

 * How does this sound? Revotes on Vfd. I would not propose a revote if I didn't think it was justified. Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh. Now that I proposed this "new policy" I'll bet that someone is going to accuse me of trying to change policy for my own devices. Nonsense: I am just trying to define a policy that has not yet been defined. I am attempting to use common sense in good faith when the current policies are inadequate. But go ahead and accuse me of trying to warp policy if you want to. I've already been accused of deleting votes, so another false accusation isn't going to hurt much.

 * "Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh." These were not my exact words, but I do believe that an article that wasn't trying to be locker-room funny with "boner" might have slipped past ever going to VfD in the first place.  Pioneer, I have never seen a user attempt to manipulate a voting page the way you have (adding sweeping statements about "the following votes" should all be revoted on, etc.  It is really distateful.   For the record, at this point I do NOT believe the revised article will fare any differently on Vfd.  It's still inherently POV.  You need to step back from the constant rationales why people need to change their votes and all the other attempts you're constantly pulling on here as you're close to crossing a line.   Moncrief 19:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I truly believe that the question of "Is this article worth keeping" can be setted much quicker and more peacefully with a revote. But if no one wants a revote, that's fine too. - Pioneer-12 08:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, heck. People will probably dispute the credibility of the revote anyway. Yadda yadda. Well, for what it's worth, there's the "how to do a revote" proposal for all to consider. I'm sure this isn't the first article which was put up for Vfd and completely rewritten during the process. In this situation, it seems reasonable to say "we need to take a fresh look at this". Oh, heck... I'm sure that there has to be some memory of previous instances where total rewrites have happened. Thus, precedents for this situation (and what happened) will be found eventually by some wise and experienced Wikipedian. - Pioneer-12 10:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * nonono, the problem is you culled their old votes BEFORE suggesting a re-vote. Now if you'd said "OK everyone, I've hurely rewritten it, could you please strike out your votes and re-vote" then that would be fine. It's considered quite rude to remove someone else's comments, and in the sense of you an editor altering deletion votes it does look quite like you are trying to pervert the flow of the voting just to retain your contributions to the article.
 * But I do believe that you should call a revote. The article is barely recognisable from its original form, and I DO think it warrants a revote! If you feel one is needed, then please call one, it's as simple as that! This is an e-democracy! I am sure at least some people will vote differently, and new ones may decide to vote to keep it. Master Thief Garrett 11:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you are implying by saying I "culled" their old votes. I didn't remove anyone's votes or comments. I just put a heading above them saying "I think you should revote". Check the edit history. Maybe because I *MOVED* one vote people seem to think that I deleted votes? the edit of the moved vote

 * Yes, I call for a revote. You seem to know the proper procedure for doing that. Since you have more experience at this then I, could you please put the header in place or whatever needs to be done? If I do it, some people will perceive it as "founder of the article bias". You have a more verifiably neutral view. - Pioneer-12 12:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Um, actually I have no idea how to do it, but even so I'll read up and do it. As you said, it'll look less biased if I do it. Master Thief Garrett 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precidents
One example of an article that was initially considered nonsense but was revised and kept:
 * Votes for deletion/Karafuto Prefecture - Look at the article now!

- Pioneer-12 11:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, you shouldn't flood this page with "reasons" because that might make people even more annoyed than they already are! Please just call a re-vote, as suggested. Master Thief Garrett 11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Yeah, everyone just revote already. If you don't then I will be forced to flood this page with reasons that will annoy everyone, including myself. :-) - P12

 * Rename to "Greatest Boners of all time" or "All time Greatest boners". Sam Spade 18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So do let us know if the revote happens on a different page. I want to be sure my vote for Delete is counted again. Moncrief 18:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Most assuredly someone here will be careful to Keep your vote to Delete, in order to Keep continuity. - Pioneer-12 19:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a spectacular mess this is. Keep and rename as Greatest boners of all time.  —RaD Man (talk) 19:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally someone who's read the story that started it all. The full version of that story is here: The Joker's Comedy of Errors, from 1951 (when phrases like "Merkle's Boner" were still in frequent use). - P12

 * The problem is *still* that most people think of "boner" with a dirty connotation... Master Thief Garrett 21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep List of incidents famously considered great blunders in current form (ie this title and with references and further reading &c). Precedent at List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever and greatest ever. -- Lochaber 23:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REVOTE (DISPUTED)
A revote has been called. Please continue discussion at the new page, Votes for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders. Your current votes WILL NOT COUNT there, you must re-vote. Master Thief Garrett 21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) This re-vote was erroneously called based on a policy invented on-the-fly by the main contributor and has caused a further dispute. Votes on the new page will not necessarily count. It is probably best to continue voting here, as some have called for deletion of the other voting page. Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, they'll count if the presiding admin decides they do. Delete this POV rubbish (Michael Dukakis in a big helmet and Varro? Please!) and censure the guy who thinks it's a good idea to make Wikipedians jump through hoops. Grace Note 23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ugh... I... I really don't know. I've gone and made a whole heap of voters really ****ed off, and... and it's all his fault really, there's really no other way to put it, it is all his fault. I used that "policy" with the best of intentions, but he created it with intentions that are not quite so clear to me... when I read it he hadn't even used the nonpolicy tag... again, I am sorry... Master Thief Garrett 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * He never used the tag. Look at the history; it was me who added the tag. You probably read the page in the 5 hours interval before I did it. --cesarb 00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...exactly... Master Thief Garrett 00:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And now, the bogus policy is itself on VfD: Votes for deletion/Revotes on Vfd. --cesarb 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please let the record state that Pioneer-12 has characterized his article as being "viciously attacked by deletionists" in comments soliciting votes for this page. I consider that a gross mischaracterization. Moncrief 04:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The was my old opinion. Now I see that the deletionist attitude is based on a desire to have an encyclopedia with the highest quality of information right now . A very honorable ideal. Several people who seem to share this belief of "consistent high quality articles, and high quality NOW" have made suggestions of how to keep the article high quality so that it does not degenerate into a "my blunder is bigger then yours" shouting contest. Their suggestions have been taken to heart, and it seems that a reasonable common ground has been found. I feel that the article is much better off after taking their concerns to heart. Now I believe that the initial negative backlash to the article was mainly due to petty anger on the part of a few and to a general lack of awareness of the intricacies of the NPOV policy. Let the record state that the deletionist faction was falsely accused. Ignorance was the real enemy all along. - Pioneer-12 10:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If this revote stands, *still* keep. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Deletion Wars - What would a Jedi do?
I wonder if Wikipedia is truly ready to handle a page of this nature. It's like placing a nuclear bomb in central park. Even though there are adults around supervising, there are also plenty of kids just dying to get their hands on it. Perhaps I was unwise to believe that understanding could be gained through discourse and discussion in such a short period of time. This whole discussion has just been one misunderstanding after another. One day, the community will understand the wisdom and power of this article; one day it may even be a featured article candidate, but that day may be a long time coming.

Delete this article if you must. It look as if there is sufficent minority support to block a delete by consensus, but that is for an administror to decide. History will record this as a dark time for the rebellion, but the forces of wisdom, logic, and understanding will one day return and strike back.

- Pioneer-12 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 'keep this please it seems reasonable Yuckfoo 00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if Pioneer-12 isn't really Iasson, trying to create new deletion policy, insisting that it's his way or the highway, all very familiar. RickK 04:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt it. This isn't Iasson's style at all. --Carnildo 05:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Iasson would be calling into question the validity of the voting method, proposing several new polls with different rules (not just a revote), trying to define the validity of who could vote, etc. He would also have taken many more edits to make each point. Thryduulf 10:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not Iasson's style at all. Pioneer-12 is intentionally ironic and kids around a lot. I think he's trying to ease the sting of rejection. The reason I think this is that it is (cough) what I tend to do this myself. Unfortunately he doesn't realize that what seems like obvious irony is frequently misunderstood online. And also that we get a lot of people like Iasson, who make what seem like ironic jokes while being (I think) 100% dead serious. We have the [[image:ironyalert.gif]] irony alert tag that should be used when it is important to avoid misunderstanding. < [[image:ironyalert.gif]] Note: that last sentence of mine is a lame ironic joke because, in fact, the ironyalert image is extremely annoying and in reality should not be used at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has been through a title change, content change and complete rewrite for style. Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into this article in the time it's been listed here.  Nevertheless, I still consider the concept for this article fundamentally flawed.  The selection of "greatest blunders" is too sweeping and too subjective to every be verifiable.  The citations to pop-history books written for their entertainment value do not (to me) qualify as adequate scholarly citations.  Further, I note that even the pop-history books stuck to a single topic and tried to find somewhat consistent criteria for inclusion.  This article has no such cohesive theme.  No change of vote.  This article is just vandal-bait.  Rossami (talk) 23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! Feco 12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You may care to explain why you vote delete. To many of us, it seems to serve no purpose whatsoever except retaliate against the rather "enthustiastic" Pioneer-12. Pcb21| Pete 00:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, didn't he just explain it? What are all those words after "Delete"?  Who are the "many of us" that you're speaking for?  Moncrief 01:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overly broad, inherently subjective, unmanageable.  Some aspects of this could be made into a separate list, such as "List of the great military blunders of all time".  Quale 06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Utah Festival Opera

Utah Festival Opera & Musical Theatre (UFOMT) is an opera company based in Logan, Utah. The company performs six fully staged works with orchestra in repertory every July and August at the Ellen Eccles Theatre and the Utah Theatre. The works performed range from operas to operettas to musicals. Singers, performers, technicians and orchestra come from all over the United States, including artists from Broadway and the Metropolitan Opera.

Founding
The company was founded in 1992 by operatic tenor Michael Ballam, a music professor at Utah State University, and a native of Logan. Besides being director of the company, he has also sung lead roles in many productions over the years.

Naughty Marietta by Victor Herbert was the first work performed by the company in 1993, along with Puccini's La Bohème and a double bill of Trial By Jury and The Impresario. Up through the 2000 season, there were three works in repertory. This increased to four in 2001, with productions of The Barber of Seville, South Pacific, Naughty Marietta and Susannah. In addition to the main stage productions, Utah Festival Opera & Musical Theatre offers many concerts and educational courses, including performances from The American Festival Chorus, conducted by Craig Jessop.

The Dansante
The offices, scene and costume shops of the company are located adjacent to the Ellen Eccles Theatre in the Dansante building, a former dance hall. The Dansante also has a Recital Hall, as well as rehearsal rooms and practice rooms.

The Utah Theatre
In 2007 UFOMT purchased the Utah Theatre, and took on a renovation of that facility, which was completed in June 2016. This addition to the company allowed for 2-3 smaller works to be performed, as well as showings of classic and silent films. The premiere performance at the Utah Theatre was Moose Charlap and Jule Styne's Peter Pan, starring Michael Ballam as Captain Hook and Adam T. Biner as Peter Pan.

Opera by Children
Opera by Children is an educational outreach program run by Pamela Gee which has provided training for teachers and in-class mentoring for over 75,000 children to create their own operas in a classroom setting. Opera by Children is used by teachers throughout Utah and many western states unity, self-discovery and enthusiasm for learning in their classrooms. There is no cost to Utah teachers as their expenses are covered by state grants except for a small fee for materials and their attendance at an Opera by Children training workshop, after which they are then eligible for participation in the full year-long program.

Conservatory
UFOMT also has a Youth Conservatory for children ranging from 8–18 years old to learn about all aspects of performing in musical theatre. Classes include acting, dance and singing which are taught by musical theatre professionals. During the Festival Season, the Conservatory hosts a week-long musical theatre intensive camp called Broadway Bound. In 2014, the program had to split the camp into Junior and Seniors due to growing membership. The Conservatory director is Stefan Espinosa.

Academy
During each Festival Season, UFOMT offers adult education courses relating to the productions that are being performed. The program is run by Vanessa Ballam. Michael Ballam offers a week-long Opera and Musical Theatre seminar where he dissects each show, looking at its history, as well as other works by that particular composer. Highlights of the Academy include the Presto Change-O(ver) class where patrons come after a matinee performance and see the technical crew change the sets from one show to another in less than an hour; managing director Gary Griffin's cooking classes; the Late Night Cabarets where Festival artists perform under the stars in an outdoor, intimate setting; the Artist's Pallet class that brings in local artist, Kent Wallis to paint a landscape in two hours time.

The Academy also offers Literary Seminars each Wednesday-Friday morning of the season, where directors, performers and designers come in to talk about their experiences that lead them to UFOMT as well as their processes in creating their roles in the productions.

Past instructors include Michael Ballam, Vanessa Ballam, Stefan Espinosa, Phillip R. Lowe, Patti Johnson, Kevin Nakatani, Valerie Rachelle, Maggie L. Harrer, Kent Wallis, Larry Winborg, Paula Fowler, Yancey Quick, Craig Jessop, Jared Rounds, Roni Stein, Jack Shouse, Nathan Buonviri, Vanessa Schukis, Kathy Johnson, Kathleen Lane, and Sheldon Harnick.

Utah High School Musical Theatre Awards
Beginning in 2011, UFOMT entered into the National High School Musical Theatre Awards program. This program is designed to recognize excellence in Musical Theatre in high schools throughout the country. During the school year, representatives from UFOMT travel across the state to adjudicate high school productions. Nominated schools and artists perform and winners are announced at an awards ceremony. The winners of Best Actress and Best Actor are sent to New York City to participate in the National High School Musical Theatre Awards, or the Jimmy's, founded by James L. Neederlander. The students make their Broadway debuts at the Minskoff Theatre, current home of The Lion King.

Awards include: Best Musical, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Cameo, Best Director, Best Choreography, Best Ensemble, Best Orchestra, Best Scenic Design, Best Costume Design, Best Lighting Design, Best Technical Crew, and student awards in Choreography, Costume Design, Set Design and Lighting Design.

Past winners
* indicates Jimmy Awards finalist

Production history
* indicates UFOMT debut

title: Utah Festival Opera