Wikipedia talk:Apology

Bit short, isn't it? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit longer now. Carcharoth (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, oh wow I like it. Support. Neal (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC).

good stuff, I reckon... have teaked the 'non apology' bit - this actually can be a problem area sometimes.... Privatemusings (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of the blue, but great idea. Can I be as bold as to suggest WP:SORRY as a shortcut? Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This essay made me fell a lot better. Especially after what I've been going through at Sembawang Hot Spring. As for the shortcut, i like it. I think I'll do that. ~Meldshal42 00:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, especially the part about sincerely offering apologies when they're warranted. We would all have a much better experience here if more editors were willing to admit their mistakes. ATren (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good essay! I can't help noticing that WP:'( is a free redirect... hmm, maybe! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When is Apology Required?

I rarely, as the article notes, expect an apology from someone, but it seems that sometimes it is needed. For one, when a user is way out of line and is on the verge of being kicked out, it seems that an apology is the least the person can do. Furthermore, when people make a personal attack on each other, that should be grounds for requiring an apology. I suppose it gets sticky from there, because there are times when people take personal offense to a difference of opinion.

Are there ever instances where an apology is required, or a common rule of engagement?

NittyG (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think requiring an apology is ever good. But some way to note the absence of an apology, after waiting for one, while still giving room for a graceful climbdown and belated apology, might be useful. What you want to avoid is "I demand an apology", followed by "Oh, OK, here you are", followed by "that's not good enough, it's too late and you should have offered the apology without being asked for it". That just makes things worse. It all depends on the particular incident and how high feelings are running. Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with that. That is also counterproductive, and just as wrong on the part of the person asking for the apology. However, what if there is a situation where an individual has called someone names - if there is no immediate meaningful apology, they would likely be banned. I see you are on the arbitration committee - how does this work?

What if someone goes around on several wikipedia pages making false claims about someone, and then never takes back their comments after it is revealed that they were wrong? If someone's reputation is attacked like this, when should that require some sort of apology? NittyG (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-apology

Just a little concerned about this one. Of course a transparently insincere "non-apology" can be in itself quite rude, and certainly no substitute for a "real" apology - on the other hand expressing guilt or remorse when one remains quite sure that the offence the other person took was hyper-sensitive or even contrived can also be blatantly insincere, and in fact look more like sarcastic gloating than real regret. BUT what about "Although I did not mean to imply ... I realise that my remarks could have been taken that way, and I am sincerely sorry for the (unintended) offence they caused". Or even "I'm very sorry my remarks caused offence". An apology of this kind borders on the "non-apology" (in fact there is a grey area where it could be taken either way). On the other hand it can be seen as driven as much by aversion to hypocrisy as a disinclination to admit fault - I think in most circumstances a reasonable person would give such a "non-apology" the benefit of any doubt over its "good faith". Subject to comment - I think I will rewrite the section concerned to be a little more flexible.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

When and how to apologise

• When: When you still cringe internally 24 hours later at the things you typed in a drunken, world-hating rage.
• How: Type (or copy and paste) the following words: I'm really sorry. NB Most people can't do this. MinorProphet (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unintended offence

I am not entirely happy at the discussion of unintended offence in the section on non-apology. One cannot be too prescriptive about forms of words, as most editors are not literary masters. I think that a phrase such as "I'm sorry that you were upset" is OK as long as you make it clear that they were not the active party by "being upset" but that it was your action that caused the upset, for example; "I'm sorry that you were upset by my comment. I did not mean it to upset you and I realise now that it could be interpreted the wrong way. What I meant to say was..."

I'd like to see some changes to reflect all this, but I'd also like some feedback first, before I try anything too drastic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think we already cover this - (following pasted from the article)

• On the other hand, a sincere expression of regret, even if it stops short of a (probably insincere) admission that one has been totally to blame, can help defuse a situation, and may stand in place of an "ideal" apology. It may even be preferred if a full, unreserved apology would be obviously insincere or hypocritical, and might even give further offense by giving the impression of sarcasm. Although they may fall into a non-apology grey area, "I'm sorry that I upset you", or better, "I'm sorry that my remarks upset you" at least place a measure of the blame onto the person apologising.

Does this effectively cover what you want? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Like your addition to the lead by the way. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It covers what I want covered, but taken together the two paragraphs do not cover it in the way that I want it covered. I am concerned not about the underlying message but about the presentation of that message. Many people will read "I'm sorry that you were upset" and "I'm sorry that I upset you" as saying exactly the same thing. But we currently diss the one and endorse the other, which must confuse the heck out of them. I think the text should focus more on the underlying message and less on trying to teach Use of English. Does that make sense (whether or not you agree with me)? 83.104.46.71 (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC) - oops, me and not logging in, sorry. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)