|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organization:|
Are George Allen, Pope Benedict XVI, Japan and World War II, and Hillary Clinton examples appropriate?
"The Perfect Non-apology Apology" is humorous, and helpful in illuminating the sort of verbal trickery that is often resorted to.
The examples from George Allen, Pope Benedict XVI, Japan and World War II, and Hillary Clinton have problems. They are described, rather than quoted directly, and no citation is given to show that the statements have been called "non-apology apologies." For example, the source cited for Japan and World War II goes to great lengths to demonstrate that the Japanese statement is not an apology, but nowhere does it use the phrase "non-apology apology."
It seems to me that in order to be included, an example at least needs to include a citation showing that someone has described the statement using the term "non-apology apology." needs to be included. Language from the statement ought to be quoted, not described.
I'd add a suggestion that I think it would be the better part of valor to stick to examples that are a) at least a couple of years old, b) stay clear of "sex, politics, and religion." The risk of non-neutrality is too great. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
U.S. senator George Allen called Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth – a young staffer from an opponent's campaign – by the slur "Macaca". Senator Allen then apologized to the staffer, not for the slur but for offending him.
Pope Benedict XVI
In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI made a similar non-apology after quoting an ancient text critical of Islam. Rather than retracting his remarks, the Pope expressed regret for the reaction to his comments, and a statement from the Vatican indicated that he "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions".
Japan and World War II
I think both of these sentences in the "United States" section should be deleted from the article:
Frequently, these statutes are misunderstood to mean that one is relieved of liability because they have apologized. For example, it has been asserted that the California State Legislature passed a bill in July 2000 relieving people of liability if they express sympathy to someone who was injured in an accident in which they themselves were involved, in the event that such an apology be misconstrued in court as an admission of guilt. [dubious ]
- Bartolomei, Matt; Black, Robin. "Apologies in the World of Litigation". Hill, Adams, Hall & Scheiffelin, P.A. Archived from the original on 1 June 2006. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
- "Why Is It So Hard to Apologize?". Watchtower.org. 1 November 2002. Archived from the original on 24 July 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
The first reference, the one after the word "frequently", does not at all support the claim that people may think an apology relieves them of guilt; in fact the cited reference says the opposite, talking about the possibility that an apology may be taken as an admission of guilt. The second sentence, about the supposed bill passed in the California State Legislature, is sourced to Watchtower which is not a reliable source and was merely trying to make a point. I live in California and I don't believe there is or ever was any such bill. The "United States" section needs expansion, but it doesn't need this kind of unverified stuff. --MelanieN (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have regretfully reverted the recent good-faith addition of phrases like "lessons learned", "move on", "not a scientist," and "not going to talk about the past." They are certainly examples of political double-speak or obfuscation, but they do not appear to be intended a form of apology; it would be Original Research to categorize them as such. If a Reliable Source describes one of these phrases as a "non-apology apology," we can add that phrase back. There ought to be a place for this type of comment, but looking at Category:Political catch phrases and Category:American political catch phrases, I don't find an article where they could go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)