Talk:Non-denial denial/Archive 1

Here's an example, maybe
Leaving this on the talk page until the dust settles, but I think Lawrence DiRita's statements about DOD approval of Abu Ghraid interrogation methods will come to be seen as a good example of a "non-denial denial:" (Newday, May 17th, 2004)


 * Pentagon officials yesterday adamantly denied charges in a New Yorker magazine article that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other key officials had approved a plan to expand from Afghanistan to Iraq a secret interrogation program that included rough treatment and sexual humiliation.


 * Calling the article "outlandish, conspiratorial and filled with error and anonymous conjecture," Lawrence DiRita, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that "no responsible official at the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos."

Notice that diRita never says the article is not true. "Filled with error" reminds me very much of Attorney-General Mitchell's Watergate comment that "the sources of the Washington post are a fountain of misinformation." Nor do I see a flat contradiction between the statements that "Rumsfeld...had approved a plan to expand from Afghanistan to Iraq a secret interrogation program that included rough treatment and sexual humiliation" and "no responsible official at the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos.".

The report calls this an "adamant denial" but I see quite a lot of qualification and wiggle room there. Dpbsmith 14:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's the full text, which sounds less like a non-denial denial and more like a denial than the portions quoted in Newsday, but I still want to leave this material here as a possible future example.

http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2004/nr20040515-0793.html Strange use of quotation marks is as in the press release.


 * Statement from DoD Spokesperson Mr. Lawrence Di Rita


 * “The article in this weeks New Yorker Magazine by Seymour Hersh is based on what appears to be a single anonymous source that makes dramatically false assertions. The burden of proof for these false claims rests upon the reporter.”


 * "These assertions on activities at Abu Ghraib, and the abuse of Iraqi detainees are outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture.


 * "The abuse evidenced in the videos and photos, and any similar abuse that may come to light in any of the ongoing half dozen investigations into this matter, has no basis in any sanctioned program, training manual, instruction, or order in the Department of Defense.


 * "No responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos.


 * "To correct one of the many errors in fact, Undersecretary Cambone has no responsibility, nor has he had any responsibility in the past, for detainee or interrogation programs in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.


 * "This story seems to reflect the fevered insights of those with little, if any, connection to the activities in the Department of Defense."


 * “With these false claims, the Magazine and the reporter have made themselves part of the story.”

It is a classic example of a non-denial denial. CBS News last night wrongly claimed it was a denial, which is exactly what a non-denial denial is all about. It looks like a denial, but if ever disproved can be responded to by "you mis-understood. We never denied. You just thought we did. Where in the text did we actually deny it?". The very use of a non-denial denial is clear evidence that Rumsfelt is guilty of something. If he wasn't he would have denied it, not usedn words phrased to give the impression that he had. FearÉIREANN


 * Just to give the devils their due... a) this is not a quote from Rumsfeld, but from "DoD Spokesperson Mr. Lawrence Di Rita." b) I pretty much agree with you&mdash;which is why I'm parking this material here. However, I do have to say that I'm not sure I see just where the wiggle-room is&mdash;oh, wait, I think maybe I do. The first paragraph says "based on what appears to be a single anonymous source that makes dramatically false assertions. The burden of proof for these false claims rests upon the reporter.” But he doesn't specify which of the assertions made in the article are the "dramatically false assertions" and "false claims." Naturally I assume that the "dramatic" claims are the ones I consider the important claims. But I suppose, for example, that they could later say that they were just denying that the operation was ever called "Copper Green."


 * "Outlandish," of course, is one of those words like "ridiculous" that crop up so often in non-denial denials. Dpbsmith 20:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Section on "religious use"
To be honest, I think this whole article is in danger of POV problems.

But specifically, I am about to remove the section that currently reads as follows, pending some serious reworking, because I really don't see how it can be usefully tweaked incrementally from its current state.


 * ==Religious use==


 * A similar usage of language to non-denial denial occurs in religion, where something is said which seems to mean one thing but actually means another. In Roman Catholicism, for example, non-infallible statements are sometimes constructured to give the impression of infallibility. This phenomenon is sometimes called Non-infallible infallibility. In the early 21st century, for example, a statement by Pope John Paul II on how the Church could not allow women priests, was conveyed to some media outlets as the "definitive" papal statement on the issue and infallible. Eventually, when challenged, it was admitted that the statement was not infallible at all, its "infallibility" being a construct of language to give the Pope's statement a higher status than its actual wording warranted. The Anglican Communion has been accused by its critics of using such linguistic dexterity and "studied ambiguity" on the issue of homosexual clergy.

The various serious problems with this section, as I see it, are as follows:


 * Main problem is that it is too vague -- no statement is actually quoted. We need the actual wording and attribution of the statements.  The reader should be in a position to judge for him/herself, and without the wording of the statements that is impossible.


 * In the "studied ambiguity" case, there is no explanation of the nature of the ambiguity, just the opinion of some unnamed critics to say that a certain body makes deliberately ambiguous statements. Studied ambiguity is significant, because it is against the church's own teaching, but it is impossible to judge on what is presented here whether the criticism is well-founded, so please let's have an actual statement, and then name(s) of the critics and/or an explanation of the criticism.


 * The phrase "Non-infallible infallibility" is written in bold as if it is a piece of accepted terminology, but there are no results from a Google search (except for mirrors of Wikipedia). If it is really used by more than the author, then please let's have a reference.


 * The main thing in common between these two examples is not so much that they so happen to both be from the church, but that are (poorly substantiated) examples only of the rather broader category of deliberately ambiguous statements, rather than actually of denials, which is what this page is allegedly about. As such, they are not really relevant anyway.  If there are more good examples of what really are non-denial denials, then let's include them (be they from the church or whoever), but let's not set up sub-sections such as "religious" unless they reflect unifying traits of the statements themselves rather than who happened to say them.

,,, Trainspotter ,,, 15:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Another example?
Son-of-a-gun, it's DiRita again. I'd completely forgotten his name, but the wording struck me as another classic "non-denial denial." In response to Seymour Hersh's article saying that the U. S. administration is conducting secret military operations in Iraq in planning for an attack this summer, DiRita said that the article was
 * "so riddled with errors of fundamental fact that the credibility of his entire piece is destroyed,"

So, what's the difference between a "fact" and a "fundamental fact?"

And doesn't his statement amount to an acknowledgement that some parts are true?

That is, this is a statement that sounds like it is denying the Hersh article while on closer reading it is actually partially confirming it.

For example, the Voice of America characterizes it as a denial, headlining the story "US Denies Report on Secret Military Operations in Iran."

The Voice of America summarizes the Hersh article in the sentences "the Defense Department has sent secret commando teams into the Islamic nation to identify nuclear, chemical and missile sites that could be destroyed by precision airstrikes and commando raids" and "Hersh says a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told him 'civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.'"

There seems to be no way of knowing whether DiRita is denying the gist of Hersh's long article, or denying details which I might think were not particulary relevant. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

simon hughes?
"Similarily, On 26th January 2006, Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes admitted to having relationships with both men and women. Only a week before, he had denied rumours he was gay. When accused of lying, he explained he had denied only that he was gay, not that he was bisexual." Is this really a Non-denial denial? it doesn't seem to fit the orginal definition: "an apparent denial that, though it appeared clearcut and unambiguous when heard, on examination turns out to be ambiguous and not a denial at all" He stated he wasn't gay, later states he is bisexual and not gay. It was clearcut that he wasn't gay and is still clearcut that he isn't gay. How is saying your not gay and you are not gay ambiguous? He didn't disclose all information iabout his sexuallity, is that a Non-denial denial?

Condoleezza Rice?
I am removing the example involving Condoleezza Rice, quite simply because the source does not reference the entirety of what she said. It is in fact quite possible that she did absolutely deny any assertions, but that the article from the Washington Post does not state it. It does not explicitly say she did not, however. Nicholasink 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If she had denied it, they would have printed it in the article. This is a case in point example. Kwertii 22:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush
I removed this:

''A second famous example occurred when President of the United States George H. W. Bush made his "Read my lips: no new taxes" speech in which he promised "no new taxes." When Bush later raised taxes, many Americans were outraged. However, Bush never said he would not raise existing taxes. "No new taxes" evidently referred to creating new taxes, which he did not.''

According to the article on that phrase, Bush genuinely intended not to raise taxes, so this is not an example of non-denial denial. --Awesome 04:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening section
I've reworked some things in the opening section. Here's why.

First, I thought it needed to be made clear that the article is really about a "phrase." "Non-denial denial" is just a new phrase for a behavior that is probably as old as officialdom. A less colorful phrase is just "equivocal denial," and a Google Books search quickly turns up numerous instances of that exact phrase, going as far back as 1764. I'm sure that someone familiar with classical literature could find crystal-clear examples of non-denial denials in classical texts, and I wouldn't be surprised if "the Greeks had a word for it."

The phrase emerged into public notice during the Watergate era, one of a number of colorful Watergate phrases, and I've cited some sources to show its identification with that era.

Finally, I thought the statement "A non-denial denial is not a lie per se, because what is said is literally true" needed to be changed. The question of what, exactly, constitutes a lie is a very old problem in ethics. Some would say it's not a lie if the words are literally true; some would say it's a question of intent, and that any statement made with intent to deceive is a lie; and there seems to be a longstanding theory in Christian ethics, having to do with replies to hostile questioners, that a deceptive statement is not a lie if it is made in response to a questioner who has no moral right to ask the question. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

P. S. Despite my comments above about DiRita, I now feel strongly that examples should be limited to cases where we can cite a source who has called a statement a "non-denial denial," using that precise phrase. And I feel moreover that the best examples are those in which a) the equivocal nature of the statement is clear; b) the authority calling it a "non-denial" is respected and neutral; and c) the examples are as old as possible. They should preferably involve statements by people who are dead and now part of history. Since using a "non-denial denial" is at least close to lying, pointing out a non-denial denial is tantamount to calling someone a liar. It's hard to resist the temptation to cite recent examples involving public figures we dislike, but it should be resisted. Even when the example is perfect and unarguable, it is still going to annoy the portion of our readership who admires that figure, and there's no encyclopedic value in annoying our readership.

And certainly we don't want McCain or Obama material, please, even though I'm sure their campaigns have been and will be issuing non-denial denials. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The movie, and a non-contradiction contradiction
Currently the article says


 * The Washington Post editor Benjamin C. Bradlee "is credited with coining the phrase non-denial denial to characterise the evasive Oval Office answers to questions," according to a 1991 retrospective on Bradlee's career in The Times.

and then three paragraphs later:


 * William Goldman's screenplay for the 1976 film adaptation put it into the mouth of Ben Bradlee and used it to dramatic purpose. The Bradlee character looks at some White House releases and comments "--all non-denial denials--we're dirty guys and they doubt we were ever virgins but they don't say the story is inaccurate."

What this is is a non-contradiction contradiction! If we believe that Bradlee coined the phrase, then it's wrong to say that the script "puts it into his mouth". But we aren't actually saying that we believe it; we're only saying that a respectable source believes it.

Further, I have watched or listened to the movie many times and I do not believe that it is being quoted accurately here: I'm sure he says "they doubt our ancestry" or something closely similar and does not refer to "dirty" or "virgins". But the sentence refers to the script, and maybe it's correct regarding the original script, just not the finished movie. If so, however, I think it would be better to quote the finished movie. Perhaps someone has a copy and can check it. I also think the quote about "didn't sound like a non-denial denial" is not in the movie. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's case
This case is not well explained. A reader without proper preknowledge on the matter cannot guess why it is considered as a non-denial denial. As Clinton's phrase is very direct, denying "sexual relations", but probably not what he was asked for. I think an explanation on why it is a non-denial denial is very needed, especially for people outside US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.224.33 (talk) 10:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I came to this discussion page exactly to see if I could find the explanation :) I think merely putting the answer in the context with the question asked would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.40.95 (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)