|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non-apology apology article.|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
- 1 Searching for early use
- 2 Pope's Apology on Sat 16 Sep 2006
- 3 Reeve's apology
- 4 Are George Allen, Pope Benedict XVI, Japan and World War II, and Hillary Clinton examples appropriate?
- 5 Citation needed
- 6 A.K.A.false apology
- 7 Merge discussion
- 8 Sony rootkit
- 9 Dubious assertion
- 10 Recent additions
Searching for early use
Does the statement used as an example have to be documented as having been called a non-apology apology? Because I feel certain that there are examples much much older than 1991, although I can't think of any off the top of my head. IsaacSapphire (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Pope's Apology on Sat 16 Sep 2006
Take a look at this: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Vatican_delivers_Pope_Benedict%27s_apology_for_offensive_comments_to_Islam. It surely qualifies as a Non-apology apology.
- No it is not. Saying that i am sorry about something that my acts or words has caused, is neither apologising, nor even meaning that i would not do it again. and once more, Manuel Paleologos is not ancient. Hectorian 01:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"It was absolutely inappropriate for me to do so."
I think that constitutes acceptance of guilt right there. Doesn't that mean it really is an apology? The fact that the Catholic organization was still miffed about his mention of the separation of Church and State doesn't mean it wasn't a real apology... Gijs Kruitbosch 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Reeve example is concerning. I'm not sure who is actually saying it's "real world example" of a NAA. There appears to be no sourcing for that opinion. I'm going to remove it until it's clearly sourced and shown not to be WP:OR. Dreadstar † 05:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
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
- "Many American states have laws that prevent a plaintiff from using an apology as evidence of liability."
I was under the impression that laws like this were vanishingly rare: here in Washington State, it was considered a major advance in lawsuit-reduction when, last year, a law was passed permitting doctors and hospital staff to apologize for mistakes without it being used against them in malpractice lawsuits. --Carnildo (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Mistakes were made was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2010. The The result of the discussion was keep, with the closing admin suggesting possible merger discussion, though no clear consensus to merge appeared in the deletion discussion. The nominator and two other discussants mentioned Non-apology apology as a possible target for redirect or merge, and two other discussants argued for merging without suggesting a target. Cnilep (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with this, "Mistakes were made" is a prime example of a "Non-apology apology" and dealing with the topics together will be clearer for the reader. Fences&Windows 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have restored the Mistakes were made article because I have come to the conclusion that (a) the phrase is not necessarily part of a non-apology, (b) the examples given are important ones, and (c) it is now a famous phrase in itself. For example, it is incorporated into the titles of several different books. Xanthoxyl < 07:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
On 17 May User:Nekose removed the entire section 'The Sony "rootkit"' without an edit summary. User:Adrian J. Hunter (rightly, in my opinion) reversed that edit as an unexplained blanking. However, I also think that Nekose was right to remove the section as a single, not terribly notable example, tantamount to trivia. I will therefore re-remove the section; I trust that no one will see this as edit warring, and invite anyone who objects to re-reverse me. Cnilep (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- No objection from me. I routinely revert unexplained section blankings unless the content is obviously problematic, because they're so common that if they weren't reverted, there'd soon be nothing left. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
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)