Talk:mistakes were made

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

mistakes were made

From RFV:

Matching the definition given, above and beyond the mere sentence on its own. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It approaches idiomacity, in that equivalent statements (e.g. "mistakes occurred", "errors were made") would seem not to convey quite the same sentiment. See, e.g.:

• 2009, Suzanne Brockmann, Into the Fire‎, p. 162:

"I'm assuming we're talking now about the Hollywood assignment," she said, "where . . . mistakes were made?"

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be just a well-documented instance of the common rhetorical practice of politely or self-servingly avoiding a clear statement of responsibility by the passive transformation. It's wired in our brains, not part of the learned lexicon, although its pragmatic use must be learned. That pragmatic use is also not a lexical phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to RFD. (My vote, BTW, will probably be keep.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. This looks more like an entry for WikiQuote. The "idiomaticity" you are claiming comes out of the context and tone of speech, not the phrase itself. The most you could argue would be that the passive construction implies a shirking of responsibility but that is a syntactical - not a lexical - feature. And, on the contrary, "mistakes occurred" and "errors were made" would convey pretty much the same information IMO. One could also say, "mistakes were made... lines were crossed... lives were changed..." etc. ---> Tooironic 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, SoP, also not cited in the RFV debate. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Appendix:English catchphrases and {{only in}}? These are not on all fours with true idioms, but have some cultural significance. Or, do we need these to provide translation practice? Otherwise, delete. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Now cited. Show me someone who thinks the 1999 and ante-2009 cites could be replaced with "mistakes occurred" or "errors were made", and I'll show you someone who's been living under a rock the past forty years. —Ruakh_TALK 23:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In particular, note that:

• The only point of "mistakes were made" in the 1999 cite is to highlight that it's not an apology. It wouldn't make sense to say "mistakes occurred" instead, because although "mistakes occurred" is not an apology either, it isn't an idiom meaning "this is a non-apology".
• In the ante-2009 cite, immediately after coincidentally mentioning a mistake that Columbus had made (i.e., not ending up where he thought he was), the author changes the subject by using the phrase "mistakes were made", coyly alluding to all the evils Columbus perpetrated. The alternative phrasing "errors were made" would have made no sense, because that would have applied equally to what she had just finished discussing. That is, the author is implicitly (and unconsciously) distinguishing between (on the one hand) a mistake and (on the other) a "mistakes were made" event.

—Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how an allusion makes something idiomatic. Is it just we happy few deletionists, we band of brothers, who believe that this way madness lies? DCDuring TALK 23:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think all allusions are necessarily idioms, but if you can't properly understand the phrase without understanding the allusion, then it's not actually SOP. Tell me — would you understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites in the entry if they used "errors took place" instead of "mistakes were made"? Setting aside the obvious fact that the authors would never do such a thing — that just makes it a "set phrase", and not everyone agrees that set phrases merit inclusion — I honestly don't think readers would even catch what the authors were trying to say. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do believe Tooironic's comment above that the point is made by almost any synonymous passive-voice construction. The specific allusive catchphrase form exerts some force in reducing frequency of the synonyms. Other allusive phrases that we have typically are not SoP, eg, emperor's new clothes omits the highly salient fact that the clothes were the null suit. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: are you saying that you would understand the 1999 and ante-2009 cites if they used (say) "errors took place"? (Sorry, just — I find that so shocking and implausible that I really want to make sure I'm understanding you. I almost want to ask and make sure that you did actually read those cites, but that seems rude.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reread them a few times now in light of your assertions. I still don't view this as very different from a good time was had by all or questions will be asked, except for the dwindling popular memory of the allusion, revived by use of the term in a recent book title. All of these are somewhat formulaic, but readily decodable. They are certainly not opaque. The use of the passive voice conveys some meaning and the fact that one might have heard the expression before conveys some triteness, but does that make these set phrases? If every catchphrase is to be an entry, let me suggest that we come up with some explicit criteria and have a vote on that point to avoid wasting time on these discussions. It's not ridiculous to have catchphrases and allusions, but it does take us farther from the lemmings we've thought of as our peers and more into the realm of the late William Safire and other more topical word commentators. DCDuring TALK 02:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete; I agree with those who see not idiomaticity here. The meaning is clear from the sum of parts. Yes, it's a common collocation, but so is "I have a bad feeling about this." The fact that a particular combination of words can be found together doesn't make it dictionary worthy. Yes, I read the quotes, and they are quotes referring to other quotes. That makes them allusive, not idiomatic. --EncycloPetey 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep. It is indeed true, to use the felicitous turn of phrase above, that "it approaches idiomaticity." The usage of this expression imparts a certain tone, a flavour, which creates an enriched meaning over and above the SoP. This term tends to express a sense of mournfulness or regret for especially consequential errors, for lost opportunities and an irrecoverable past. It also often tends to convey a note of ashamedness, an apologetic tone, or a confessional quality. I do disagree, however, with the {{politics}} context and with the limited sense of the current gloss defn (this term is bigger than that). -- The inclusionist Ghost of WikiPedant 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All good writing adds something to the bare meaning of the component words. I don't think that connotation belongs in dictionaries, unless it is at the core of an utterance (eg, interjections). DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete per EP.​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

An exemplar of awareness of the meaning of the passive voice, from Slashdot:

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday November 10, @10:38PM from the tonight-on-security-theater dept.

Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Two days before toner cartridges threatened western civilization, Britain's Home Office minister Baroness Neville-Jones was en route to a Washington summit when she was found to have an over-sized aerosol can in her bag. While being questioned by airport security staff for transporting a container with more than 100ml of liquid, the Baroness seemingly took offense at being lectured on the importance of security procedure: 'Of course I know how important it is,' she said, 'I'm the Security Minister.' The Baroness is also former head of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, and was traveling at the time to discuss the war on terror with US security chiefs. According to a Home Office spokesman, trained in the use of the passive voice, 'Liquids were inadvertently left in a bag. The item was removed and the Minister fully complied with subsequent checks.'" [emphasis added] DCDuring TALK 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete. It is a quotation. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete, I think. Ƿidsiþ 08:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep, for the reasons Ruakh outlines. — Beobach972 21:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: I don't really understand Ruakh's comment about how this is different from errors were made, in the 2009 quote or any other. "Mistakes were made" is definitely more common, but surely any extra-semantic connotations this has come from the passive voice, and all similar statements which use the passive voice have the same connotations? Am I missing something special about this particular wording? Ƿidsiþ 09:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the citations added just show this to be SoP. It would be a bit like me saying 'the glass is broken' without me saying 'I broke the glass'. Doesn't mean the glass is broken is an English idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of connotations, but of denotations. (Note: In this regard I am not agreeing with BD2412 or with Ghost of WikiPedant, and not endorsing the phrase's idiomaticity in the various cites they added. They may well be right — I don't know — but I'm talking of something quite different, something I'm much more sure of.) In the 1999 and ante-2009 cites this phrase can't be replaced with any other non-apology, because the speakers aren't actually non-apologizing; rather, the 1999 cite is saying "this guy should be apologizing, but isn't" (what would "an errors-occurred explanation" be? I'm not sure, since there is no such thing, but if it existed it would presumably have to involve the words "errors" and "occurred", whereas "a mistakes-were-made explanation" apparently doesn't require "mistakes", "made", or the passive voice), and the ante-2009 cite is alluding, tongue in cheek, to the evils Columbus perpetrated (what would "And of course, as they say, errors occurred" mean? I'm not sure, because "they" don't "say" that, but presumably it would mean that someone messed up, rather than that someone did evil things). I think EncycloPetey — despite denying this — comes closest to presenting a decent alternative explanation: he contends that these denotations are not "idiomatic" but rather "allusive". If such a distinction existed, he would surely be right, but I don't think idioms and allusions are mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that this is both. *shrug* But clearly most of y'all disagree, so I don't know why I'm wasting my breath. —Ruakh_TALK 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added another example to the article, from 1997:

• 1997, Congressional Quarterly weekly report: volume 55:

  Witnesses admitted wrongdoing. With no caveats, no "I can't recalls" — not even a "mistakes were made" — three Buddhist nuns from a California temple confessed on live television Sept. 4 that their organization had illegally reimbursed followers for donations to the Democratic National Committee [...]

— Beobach972 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to be mention, not a use. Not that it is advanced in the same manner as '"I can't recall"', which is decidedly not idiomatic.

If it is decided that this is idiomatic, there are many formulaic phrases that would need to be included as well: "I can't recall.", "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me.", "You bet your bippy.", "Not on your life." and others. DCDuring TALK 01:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about those first three, but I think Not on your life. should indeed have an entry. I take it you think otherwise? —Ruakh_TALK 02:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't always check my examples very carefully. That one might well be idiomatic. The terms most accessible in (my) memory are often idiomatic if not just cliches. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

But what about this quote from the Washington Monthly message boards: ‘Uhh, Steve, you wrote this post in an "errors were made" style without noting WHO lost control of the stimulus proposals.’ Isn't this the same thing? Ƿidsiþ 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is . . . and it sounds incredibly "wrong" to me. Does it sound natural to you? —Ruakh_TALK 22:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't sound unnatural, in all honesty. But OK, I retract my delete vote and will abstain. Perhaps the commonness of this particular collocation makes it interesting enough to have around. Ƿidsiþ 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "errors were made": I would point to this reference and these to the Ottoman Empire being "the ill man of Europe". — Beobach 23:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Err on the side of keep. The following snippets picked from the citations signal to me that something non-trivial is going on with the phrase: (a) "And of course, as they say, mistakes were made"; (b) "Let's just say that mistakes were made"; (c) "a mistakes-were-made explanation". I think non-apology apology would deserve a clear definition, maybe like "a statement that uses apology-like phrasing but also contains clear signs that a sincere apology is not intended", or of the sort; I do not really know what "non-apology apology" is. --Dan Polansky 19:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be barely attestable as an idiom but, whether or not it is, it seems worth some level of inclusion. At the very least inclusion in some Appendix:English catchphrases, pointed to by {{only in}}. This has the disadvantage of not allowing translations. It might be worth thinking of current catchphrases as good candidates for the phrasebook. Ruakh's diligent efforts have found some citations that seem to support idiomaticity without being mentions. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone's counting votes (as he shouldn't primarily be, instead focusing on arguments) then he should first strike my "delete" vote. It still does seem to me that it should be deleted, but all these wise editors disagree with me, so count me as abstaining.​—msh210℠ (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

deleted. Even though people will disagree with me, I think there is no idiomaticity coming from the sequence of these three words alone. Any non-English speaker unfamiliar with politics will immediately understand the phrase if he knows the individual words mistakes, were and made. Any connotations beyond that come from its prior use as a quote by a famous politician, which is however beyond our scope, and rather within the scope of our sister project, Wikiquote. Otherwise, we would open the door to millions of phrases such as you forgot Poland, ich bin ein Berliner and the same in other languages as well, like niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten or wollt ihr den totalen Krieg. -- Prince Kassad 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This should not have been deleted: 7 people voted for deletion (I have excluded msh210 who has retracted his "delete"), 4 for keeping; this does not even pass the 2/3 threshold. --Dan Polansky 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So? RFD is not a vote. -- Prince Kassad 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD is not a place when you can close nominations as you see fit. I do not see what makes you think you are entitled to do so. As far as I am concerned, RFD should be driven by principles that come rather close to those of a vote. --Dan Polansky 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

RFD discussions should be closed with en eye to the arguments that were made. If a hundred people said to delete (or keep) something and then someone thought of a new argument to keep (respectively, delete) it, which no one had mentioned previously in the discussion and so perhaps those hundred had not thought of it, I'd tag it with {{look}}, not delete (keep) it. If seven people say to delete (keep) something and five to keep (delete) it, but those five offer arguments in line with the CFI and precedent whereas the seven do not, then I will not delete (keep) it, and may even keep it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

By doing so, you imply that you are more able than other people to decide which argument is correct and which is incorrect. You in particular may be smarter than a particular set of voters, but there is no guarantee in general that the closing admin is smarter than the people who have voted against his closing judgment. The people who have voted keep were Ruakh, Wikipedant, Beobach972, and me. I won't speak about myself, but each of the three other users strikes me as exceptionally thoughtful and smart. I do not hold Prince Kassad smarter than me, Ruakh, Wikipedant, and Beobach972, so I am dissatisfied with his closing the request in this way. Actually, I found his argument for deletion one of the weakest presented. --Dan Polansky 20:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was (and am) commenting (here, in this post-RFD discussion) on the general principle of closing RFD as a pure vote versus closing it with an eye to arguments, not on the specific RFD of mistakes were made. I think a closing admin, if closing against a majority, must weigh arguments carefully and as objectively as possible. But I don't think that means he must never close against a majority.​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine a RFD in which the closing admin would IMHO rightfully close against a majority, such as a RFD in which many anons or registered non-contributors would push their POV. But I have never seen such a case of RFD; this one is not such one; none of the keepers have presented obviously wrong or outlandish arguments, from what I can tell. The closing admin should not assume extra privileges per his being the closing person. Unless an exceptional situation occurs, the closing admin should not try to judge which arguments are correct and which are incorrect. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow. This is a borderline insult. -- Prince Kassad 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is a borderline insult? Which sentence did you find insulting? I am saying that you are not smarter than me; is this an insult? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to think I deleted three hundred with a 10 to 6 majority for the deletion. 7 out of 11 is a massive majority anywhere but on Wikimedia projects. I think one of our weaknesses is we keep entries when there is no consensus no matter how poor or wrong they may be. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I said that you should not have deleted "three hundred". 7 out of 11 (64%) is not a supermajority anywhere; it is a plain majority. --Dan Polansky 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Prince Kassad erred here. His closing comment implies that he had not read the discussion, and deleted the entry simply because he felt that it should be deleted; either that implication is accurate, in which case he acted wrongly, or else it's inaccurate, in which case he did a poor job expressing himself in his closing comment. However, I don't agree with Dan Polansky's view that an entry should only be deleted if twice as many discussion-participants support deletion as oppose it. Such a criterion seems appropriate for WT:VOTE, but not for WT:RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the criterion that you think is appropriate for RFD? The judgment of the closing admin? Or a percentage lower than 2/3? Or something else? Is it correct that you say that consensus should not be needed for a RFD to lead to the deletion of an entry? --Dan Polansky 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would I close an RfD without reading the discussion? This seems like a stupid thing to do for any admin. -- Prince Kassad 18:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you would, and I don't particularly think that you did, but that's the impression your comment gives. —Ruakh_TALK 21:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)