Talk:Non-apology apology/Archives/2013

Searching for early use
FWIW First use on USENET appears to be December, 1995 so the 1991 New York Times usage is older. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * Actually it seems like a good example of a "non-apology apology" to me. But it should only go in the article if and when someone can provide a source citation that shows that it has actually been called a "non-apology apology" in a mainstream source. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is wikinews considered acceptable as a reference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uncle uncle uncle (talk • contribs) 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Reeve's apology
"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)

Citation needed

 * "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)

A.K.A.false apology
There's an excellent compendium at "Apology?" that editors here may find useful.LeadSongDog come howl  00:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
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  &amp;  Windows  19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

✅. Cnilep (talk) 01:09, 6 July 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  &lt; 07:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sony rootkit
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)