Talk:Apologia

We seem to have an editing problem with this article. When I first came across it I found that someone (anonymous) had stated that it was equivalent to remorse. This is not the case: see any dictionary or refer to the Wiki article on Apologetics, where it's defined as "the discipline of defending a position"

I corrected this, only to find that a short while later an anonymous user (presumably the same one) had reverted to the original text. I'm not sure what to do. I don't intend to spend my time in a childish edit war, and can only appeal to the person responsible to look into the matter carefully and make the appropriate changesArcencielltd (talk)

Address the problem noted by previous editor adding clarifications, definitions, and etymology.
Much of this article conflates apologia a formal defense with apology as a statement of regret. I corrected the source of the confusion by adding to the definition and etymology, supported by dictionary definitions, encyclopedia references, and etymology citations.

KSci (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose removal of content concerning re: Benoit and apology
The Benoit discussion beginning with: "Other scholars of rhetoric propose alternative conceptualizations available within the scope of apology W. L. Benoit identifies five major strategies that intersect with Ware and Linkugel.[7]" confuses 'apology' and 'apologia' and expands the word 'apology' to present aspects of cited book that are beyond the scope of the books content on apology. For these two reasons, and because off-topic and out of scope content cannot be improved to fix the problem, I propose that the W. L. Benoit content be removed.

KSci (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that there are no objections, this change will be implemented shortly.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Academic Analysis section content is about rhetoric, which is contrary to the meaning of "apologia"
The content of the academic analysis section does not appear relevant to the topic. I propose that this content be removed.

  K Sci  &#160; (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Negative connotations
In the modern usage section I think there should be a paragraph on historical apologetics, mainly colonial and imperial, or a reference to revisionism. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In colonial apologetics it is the use of colonial histories being used at face value without critique of their function or bias Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)