Talk:Whataboutism/Archive 2

Whataboutism as a valid argument
Here's an op-ed from the New York Times which argues that whataboutism is not always a fallacy. Sometimes it's a valid argument. It's a demand for logical consistency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/opinion/one-cheer-for-whataboutism.html One Cheer for Whataboutism By Ben Yagoda New York Times July 19, 2018

In an appearance on “Morning Joe,” Al Sharpton, using a variant I call thought-experiment whataboutism, suggested that the United States southern-border policy of separating illegal immigrants and their children reflected a double standard. “Imagine if this was Canadian children,” he said. “Would President Trump even think about grabbing Canadian children?”

Clearly, Mr. Sharpton doesn’t think family separation is acceptable at either border. His critique of the Trump administration’s policy would appear to be solid....

There’s also the sort of nonprejudicial whataboutism we value journalists and other watchdogs for practicing. When they’re doing their jobs well, they point out public figures’ discrepancies, flip-flops and hypocrisy, not to gain a partisan advantage but in the interest of informing the public.

Tu quoque is a subset of the so-called ad hominem argument: a strike against the character, not the position, of one’s opponent. Ad hominem gets a bad press, but it isn’t without merit, when used in good faith. It’s useful in an argument to show that the stance being taken against you is inconsistent or hypocritical. It doesn’t win the day, but it chips away at your opponent’s moral standing and raises doubt about the entirety of his or her position.

--Nbauman (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Additionally, whataboutism can recontextualize arguments in a useful manner. If party A is criticizing party B for doing bad thing C, but A is guilty of much worse thing D without facing consequences, then B pointing out that A does D is grounds for a reevaluation of A's accusations. On a related note, it's a little suspect the way that whataboutism is so heavily associated with the Soviet Union's criticisms of the US--this article treats discussion of crimes in the Soviet Union to be grave injustices, but heinous acts done by the US are just distractions from what the USSR is doing? Both countries did many reprehensible things, and frequently tried to blame the other to draw attention away from their own flaws.
 * At any rate, both of these concerns could be addressed by adding a Criticism section that addresses the uses and a priori evaluation of validity of whataboutism.Rosguill (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Good idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a Criticism section using the better arguments from the German language article on Whataboutism (one of the arguments was not actually criticism, and two were poorly sourced). I'm concerned, however, that "Criticism" doesn't sufficiently express the content of the section and could be confusing for readers. That having been said, other ideas I had for a section title such as "Defense" or "Critique of the category of whataboutism" aren't much better, do other people have suggestions? Rosguill (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is a criticism section a good idea? Or would it be better integrated into the article? Stickee (talk) 08:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. "Recontextualize"? What makes whataboutism a fallacy is the fact that C is still a bad thing and criticism of B for doing C is still justified. What A did has no bearing on that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Tu quoque is a logical fallacy; it is not a sound defense in itself. However, not all arguments when accused of wrongdoing need to be direct defenses of the action. An analogous situation would be having your case thrown out in court because the prosecution procured evidence illegally: what the defendant did is still wrong, but due to the bad-faith behavior of the prosecution there is no grounds to convict the defendant. In fact, in the Nuremberg trials, charges of "unrestricted submarine warfare" against Nazi admirals Dönitz and Raeder were thrown out on a tu quoque defense (the British and American naval forces had also engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare; Dönitz and Raeder were convicted on other charges). Outside of debate team and philosophy papers, it is entirely possible for a counter-argument that is not a direct defense of the accusation to be relevant if it introduces more evidence that the accusation is disingenuous, misguided, or absurd.Rosguill (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "not all arguments when accused of wrongdoing need to be direct defenses of the action" - True. Only the valid ones need to be.
 * Examples from jurisprudence are only relevant in courtrooms. Trying to use the things lawyers do as standards for correct behaviour would open several cans of different phyla of particularly nasty worms. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't get derailed into a full discussion of whether Whataboutism is appropriate per WP:FORUM. As demonstrated by Nbauman above and by myself in the article, there are reliable sources that argue in defense of whataboutism, and that is sufficient reason to include them in a criticism section in this article.Rosguill (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We should not call it that. See WP:CRITICISM.
 * But of course, as said above, we can quote the excuses of people who do not want to surrender this fallacious reasoning. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

If the argument is fallacious or not in this case depends highly on the conclusion. E.g.

- You did whatever and that's wrong! - Well, you did the same, therefore it's not wrong.

That's fallacious. But this is not:

- You did whatever and that's wrong! - Well, you did the same, therefore you are not entitled to judge me.

The problem is that most of the time the conclusion is not explicitly given, so the first example is taken from granted as implicit. 47.62.157.23 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually the second is an example of real whataboutism, and it too is wrong. Whataboutism is a fallacious argument. The reason it's appealing to our sense of justice is that it seems hypocritical to judge someone else for something of which oneself may also be guilty. Yes, it's hypocritical, but it doesn't mean the accusation is wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue is that discussion of whataboutism treats the circumstances of accusations in international politics as a debate, which misrepresents the context. When countries accuse each other of wrongdoing, they're not just making a plain accusation, they're establishing moral grounds for international intervention by highlighting the accused's wrongdoing as exceptional and worthy of note. Identifying hypocrisy through whataboutism attempts to address the implication of exceptionality made by the accusation. If you're the representative of Russia at the UN, you don't need to argue that you've done nothing wrong, you just need to establish that what you've done is nothing out of the ordinary as far as world powers are concerned. If that's not an argument that would fly in a college debate team, that's fine, international politics isn't a college debate championship. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion here. There are two different circumstances. The first is factual. Accusation: "You attacked Czechoslovakia." Response: "You attacked Vietnam." Clearly, whatever happened in Vietnam, Cuba, Grenada, etc, is irrelevant to the factual issue of what the USSR did in Czechoslovakia in 1968. However, from a moral/ethical/political point of view, this response is relevant. And if it is the USA that is making the accusation, then this is relevant. None of us accept unfair accusations (even if they are true) and it is illogical to claim that we do.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the problems with this is that countries are not people. Is an American who did not personally invade Cuba morally allowed to critize a the USSR's attack on Czechoslovakia? If no, then criticism becomes impossible because everybody is somehow connected with all the wrongs of his countrymen. The whole thing is stupid.
 * But of course, nothing any of us thinks is relevant. We repeat what reliable sources say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whataboutism is in most contexts a deliberate distraction and a logical fallacy. It does not tend to prove or disprove the merits of the original thesis. E.g., Whether Donald Trump is guilty of misconduct in office, violation of public trust or the Emoluments clause, corrupt or indictable has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Hillary Clinton mishandled emails.
 * In that context is has been used as a dog whistle to rally supporters. "What about Hillary?" and Lock her up".
 * However, as a political statement or an affirmative defense, there can be a tangential kernel of truth, i.e., it supports the inference of hypocrisy, political bias, prosecutorial bias, disparate treatment and disparate penalty. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Sagecandor, who was heavily involved in this article in the past, has been banned as a sock.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Edward Lucas
In the early discussions on this talk page, it was quite accepted that Edward Lucas either coined or pretty much single handedly popularized the variant term "whataboutism" (whereas "whataboutery" had already existed for a good while). This is quite easy to prove. There exist almost no mentions of "whataboutism" on the internet before Lucas' January 2008 article, which claimed that it was used during the Cold War. Searching on Google from 1940 to 31 December 2007 still returns less than five (!) pages of hits, and most of those hits are from post-2008 comments on pre-2008 news sources or fora/websites where the year is inaccurate. I don't know if there's a single pre-2008 RS mentioning the term. This doesn't mean technique it describes didn't exist, but it does make the introduction inaccurate, particularly "Lexicographers date the first appearance of the variant whataboutism to the 1990s or 1970s, while other historians state that during the Cold War, Western officials referred to the Soviet propaganda strategy by that term." All of these sources appear to go back to Lucas, and seem to have no direct sourcing other than Lucas. This is amplified by the fact that some sources appear to confuse the term "whataboutism" with the practice of "whataboutism". Several sources link the term directly to him. Business Insider writes: "Russia frequently used the technique, dubbed "whataboutism" by The Economist's Edward Lucas in 2008, during the Cold War, and it was most recently revitalized by Russian President Vladimir Putin." Foreign policy writes: "He’s adopting Putin’s favorite propaganda device — a refurbished Soviet tactic that Edward Lucas, who spent years as the Economist’s bureau chief in Russia, named “whataboutism.”" Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Back when I was more engaged with this article, I objected to the formulation in the lead because it established a WP:FALSEBALANCE between lexicographers (Ben Zimmer, Oxford dictionary staff), who are experts in the field of -- well, lexicography -- and Andreas Umland, who has no expertise in this field. For whatever reason, my objections didn't get traction at the time. Two things have changed while I wasn't watching: 1) Merriam-Webster staffers have published a piece of this topic, which unearthed an example of earlier usage; 2) fellow editors contributed additional weak sources that bear on the topic. I think that, per NPOV, we should reflect the difference of opinions between specialists on the topic, and remove commentary by non-specialists (Umland, the OpEd in Sputnik News and the blog at the FT site) as undue, or at least give it significantly less weight than the authoritative sources. Eperoton (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on the bit about giving more weight to authorative sources rather than just trying to find support for what's already there. Can you show the Merriam-Webster article that uncovered earlier usage? I can't find it. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, here it is. Eperoton (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, I had read that article, but I don't see where they mention the term "whataboutism" to have actually existed before 2008 and they don't give any examples. It seems like they, too, are either talking about "whataboutery" or some similar terminology, or are also simply quoting Lucas and others that quoted him (again see circular reporting). It's clearly RS and so that's all good but we should be certain that they mean what we think they mean. Fact remains that it's nowhere to be found on the internet before 2008, even though hundreds of news sources going back to the 50s are now digitalized. I would almost call it a ghost word. MW does say: "Time will tell if whataboutism can persuade its way into the language, but its recent upswing in usage suggests it may have staying power." Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, did you miss the paragraph that starts "The association of whataboutism with the Soviet Union..." and the quote from 1978? Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Woah, somehow I did. There you go then. I googled the quote and ended up on a pretty informative website by a French linguist, who wrote an article about the word's origin. He claims a "Lionel Bloch" first used and probably coined both "whataboutism" and "whataboutist" in a letter to The Guardian in which he criticized communists employing the technique. That letter then inspired the The Age piece that Merriam-Webste quotes. The quote does indeed have a lot in common with Bloch's statements. With this new information it seems to have first come up in media in 1978, then it died in most of those circles (but possibly not all), and enjoyed a resurgence in 2008. Merriam-Webster pretty much says this too. Prinsgezinde (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The French linguist doesn't seem to qualify as an "established expert" under WP:SPS, but I think the three strong sources (Zimmer, Oxford Dic, and M-W) are enough at least to write the lead passage in a less awkward way, since M-W supports the viewpoint which was originally sourced with the weaker sources. Eperoton (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that the term was used in 1978 in Australia doesn't seem that significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Prinsgezinde and Jack Upland that all recent invocations of this term as "what the Soviets used to do" can be traced back to Edward Lucas' "recollections" in 2007–2008. I and others had argued this in detail a couple years ago, and had been violently opposed by User:Sagecandor, the then-WP:OWNER of the article. This person having retired (and having been proven a banned sock), I think we can create a more balanced and accurate version now. Happy to work with you to improve the text. — JFG talk 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See 's rationale back in 2016:
 * and mine in 2017:
 * and mine in 2017:

Reliability of Stopfake.org
Is this source reliable enough in their analysis of Russian propaganda? It seems to have a particularly partisan, pro-Ukrainian take over their coverage of the Donbass and Crimea.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Ukrainian propaganda, no better than the Russian flavor. — JFG talk 03:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting argument. Telling that sources which refute propaganda are no better than the propaganda itself is an example of Whataboutism (the subject of this page). My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny indeed. Propaganda wars have been fought since the dawn of history. Whataboutism is nothing new, except a catchy word. — JFG talk 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This particular publication by "Stop fake" is mostly just a bunch of quotations, which are very obvious examples of Whataboutism, with supporting links to sources (typically RT) that made such claims. So, yes, I think it can be used per WP:RS on this page, although it is indeed a biased/partisan source.My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case we can start using Russian sources as RS, if Ukrainian propaganda is acceptable. Prince Hubris (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced claims and other confusion
Continuing in the spirit of earlier discussions on this article, I have made a few changes to the section 'Use by Soviet and Russian leaders' which suffered from a few issues including frequent repetition and some confusion between the term 'whataboutism' and the tactic. • fixed some grammar that implied the term itself was used by Soviet officials

• removed repetition of intro paragraph redefining the term

• removed paraphrasing of Edward Lucas at the top of the section and replaced it with a direct quote which was already included later under 'Soviet Union period'

• removed reference to "Western officials" using the term, a claim not made in the source cited

• removed claim that the term "was known locally the Soviet Union." the cited source seems to imply it's known as "whataboutism" in the US (which makes more sense given the etymology and that it's an English portmanteau, not a Russian term)

• removed that the term "became known as a soviet cliche". the author of this piece calls it a cliche, but does not say it was known as a cliche at the time

• under 'Post-Soviet Russia' there are sequential sentences stating that whataboutism is used by "the Kremlin", "Russian public relations strategies", "Russian propaganda", and "Russian leaders" without making a substantially different point each time. i've left most of it except the part about "Russian leaders" which served only to re-define the term again, and then make an unrelated statement about Russians blaming their actions on "Western provocation" which is a separate topic and not an example of whataboutism

Overall, I'd like someone else's take on the entire 'Use by Soviet and Russian leaders' section which I believe is still problematic. I come back to the distinction between the term and the tactic itself, and which this article is about. As stated in the first sentence of the intro, the tactic is simply a variation of the 'Tu quoque' logical fallacy. Clearly this article is not the appropriate place to list every historical example of said fallacy, so why the focus on Soviet and Russian use? To me, singling out Russia is only interesting because western media commonly uses "whataboutism" in reference to Russia: once in 1978 and then many times after 2007. Yet that's not how the section is framed. There's a difference between saying "western media commonly uses this term when discussing Russia" and "Russia is unique in its use of this logical fallacy." The latter is not claimed in any of the sources I've examined. Phrased another way: this section borders on original research. The majority of the cited articles are not examinations of the term itself, but rather original instances of its usage which this article has tied together. The fact that many of these articles assert that this is an old soviet tactic, in my view, only merits a few sentences.

Furthermore, if we want to get into further depth how Russia has been unique in its use of tu quoque, there's already an entire article that discusses this as a general idea: And you are lynching Negroes

Batsarentbugs (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Usage in India
This is a common argument used in India. Especially as the right wing has come to power. Ancient wrongs have been used to justify current day abuses. Sonamkapadia (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Use by other states
This information has been removed. I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense
This article is just anti-Russian propaganda, as if Russia is somehow unique in whataboutism. It's pure racism, no more reason for it than to have Wikipedia's article for lie describe lying as a "sacred Jewish tactic." It doesn't even make any sense, as if killing half a million children in Iraq is better than annexing Crimea. This article reads like some neocons, like Julia Ioffe and the insane Harding, trying to convince themselves of their own delusions. It should be rewritten to actually be NPOV rather than blatantly pushing racist anti-Russian nonsense. Prince Hubris (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , this has been raised multiple times by a few different editors, with some improvements (the article used to not even have any coverage of criticism of the category of whataboutism). I would suggest that you start making some edits, and then talk it out here if/when they're reverted, per WP:BRD. A word of warning: you may find yourself in a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situation, as for better or for worse, relatively reliable American publications have spilled a lot of ink characterizing whataboutism as a Soviet/Russian phenomenon (see also, And you are lynching Negroes ...come to think of it, the strongest argument for toning down the anti-Russian content here may be to suggest merging it to that article ). signed,Rosguill talk 22:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take you up on your suggestion and begin making some edits because I agree this article's quality is poor. As I'm sure some editors here are aware at this point, this topic was featured on a podcast that researched the term's history and concluded the connection to Soviet Russia is likely incorrect, and at the very least all mentions in modern US media (the 'lot of spilled ink' you reference) use a single 2007 Economist article as their lone source. This article itself leans heavily on that source, in places framing its content as objective fact. We can safely steer clear of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS because I'm not here to mindlessly repeat some other source or do my own research into the term. But we can and should be conscious of Wikipedia content that uncritically leans on a source that has been credibly questioned. Batsarentbugs (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to agree about this. I'm well aware that the Soviet Union had an atrocious human rights record, but to couch this article mostly in those terms is wrong. Even in Communist terms you could mention China etc who did this. The US has a two party cartel, which means both sides do in reference to each other - not just Trump supporters.


 * For what it's worth, the term is commonly used in discussions about Association Football in the UK, which has little or no bearing on the Cold War or American politics either.-213.205.241.12 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is the Soviet Union being mentioned at all?
Add me to the long list of editors who don't see the purpose of attaching this phenomenon to the "Soviets". First of all, the USSR is ancient history: there are many more recent and relevant examples of whataboutism happening in America every single day. We currently have a political situation in this country where whataboutism is one of the principle tactics being used, and harking back to "it is associated with the Soviets" just feels antiquated, like the article isn't up to date.

I would suggest either rewriting the article to delete the "Soviet" angle altogether, or else making the Soviet thing just one example of many: not the primary one, and not in the lead section. As it stands, the article feels outdated, like it was written years ago and hasn't been updated. Chillowack (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. Revisiting this article after making edits a few months ago, I only feel more strongly. No editor has adequately answered why the Soviet Union deserves this level of analysis in this article. The basic reason is that the US news media has recently, repeatedly used the term in relationship to the Soviets and Russia. However, there is more than one possible explanation for this phenomenon. One POSSIBLE reason is that the Soviets are unique in their usage of this fallacy. There are also many other possible explanations, and it's not Wikipedia's job to weigh in on that question.


 * To repeat my point from earlier: The myriad news articles cited here don't talk about the term, they merely use it. What this article desperately needs is a scholarly source that examines usage of this term. If no one can come up with such a source, I seriously suggest that this section (and probably others -- I see the Trump section is equally contentious) be pruned down to only a few sentences. Batsarentbugs (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a disinformation tool. Not exclusive to the Soviets, certainly, but prominently used by them.  It is a fallacious argument that some politicians and politicos use to confuse the easily gulled.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the USSR is only an example. Unfortunately this article and a number of others were dominated by a clique of editors with a hidden agenda.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It typifies discourse by the current occupant of the White House, his press secretaries, Rudy Giuliani and other adherents. "What about Joe Biden."  "What about Hillary." ...  He knows how to use it. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * But what has that got to do with the USSR???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

They were noted as being a foremost and forefront practitioner. Why would they be excluded? To say that the article is under inclusive (it is) is not to say they should be given a pass. Add other examples, but don't excise them. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * One argument for not focusing quite so much on the USSR in this article is that we already have an entire article dedicated just to Soviet whataboutism, And you are lynching Negroes. signed,Rosguill talk 17:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they were not the foremost or forefront practitioner of the logical fallacy, a concept that dates back centuries, or the term, which is an English word first used in relation to Northern Ireland. To repeat yet again, the most famous Soviet use of this tactic has its own article. So as I see it, the question stands totally unanswered. Batsarentbugs (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you concede it is part of their disinformation arsenal. That explains why they are mentioned.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Definitely deserves mention. As I said earlier, probably a short paragraph. The term 'whataboutism' does not have a definition distinct from tu quoque. It is only relevant because it has been used by the news media as a synonym for said fallacy in certain geopolitical contexts. Therefore Russia deserves a short section explaining that the term has been used to describe Russia with examples and a link to And you are lynching Negroes, rather than a long, repetitive section implying Russia is unique. There should probably be equally long paragraphs for Northern Ireland and Trump, and for any other topic on which the term has frequently been used. This article as it stands is framed incoherently and has an identity crisis, alternately describing the underlying logical fallacy and talking about the term whatboutism itself. Batsarentbugs (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Attribution
Links copied from And you are lynching Negroes to Whataboutism. See former article's history for a list of contributors. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Links copied from Whataboutism to And you are lynching Negroes, See former article's history for a list of contributors. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Rampant vandalism
It appears this article has been the subject of rampant vandalism by trump supporters. Any reason why this article isn't protected yet? 46.97.170.78 (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I see it's protected now.

Donald Trump
It's incredible that every single article on Wikipedia is now somehow levied against trump. This has absolutely nothing to do with the word. If Trump is, than every single president needs to be mentioned. Until then, this section needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.212.14.35 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This is true - the article should focus on the fallacy itself, but became a circlejerk for people to vent their hate for politicians. Unfortunately there are too many losers editing Wikipedia and they revert any change you made that's against their emotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.208.94 (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It just goes to show biased Wikipedia is these days. Even one of the co-founders says its little more then biased BS these days. That's pretty damning. OldBolshevik (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Chernobyl
I want to try and refute the claim TASS was trying to "tu quoque" USA in their 1986 broadcast: instead, they tried to explain the sitiation, using most recent nucler power plant accident as an example.


 * Three Mile Island power plant accident, "by itself", per se wasn't catastrophic.
 * However, the panic, caused by radiophobic rumors over the accident, was catastrophic. IIRC, the panic-related stampede killed 30 people.

So, TASS, basically, was tasked with dealing with possible panic over rumors via explaining Chernobyl's accident. Basically, using other accidents on nuclear power plants around the world as an example is not propagating anything.

Uchyotka (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s.: I looked up "propaganda techniques", and, apparently, even name-calling has the proud title of a propaganda technique.


 * This is an interesting and important topic, but please observe the notice at the top of this and all talk pages: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whataboutism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." ch (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wrong on

general discussion of the article's subject part, I legit "dissed" a certain part of this article: the part on Chernobyl in the article is misleading and unrelated. The only purpose of the TASS' broadcast was to adress the possible outcomes by presenting an analysis of similar accidents in "peaceful atom" segment, e.g. no whataboutery was intended.Uchyotka (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I, however, brought Three Mile Island for sake of illustrativeness, neither for starting a chat on an unrelated topic nor for calling for help with Three Mile Island article.
 * Instead of deleting the section right away, though, I want to discuss it - should Chernobyl-TASS section be kept or deleted. I believe it's unrelated so it should be deleted. Uchyotka (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent invention
The citations provided for the definition in the first line are all very recent. This appears to be a recent invention and does not meet the definition of the tu quoque logical fallacy appearing on that page. Indeed the article itself claims an origin in the 1970s. As a recent invention, the article should show that it has been included in modern philosophy. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The article needs a lot of work on it because it completely ignores the origin of the word and focuses mainly on the usage of the tactic by the Soviet Union (criticism of which came afterwards). Instead of focusing on how political commentators subsequently used the term in their commentary on the soviet union, it becomes a list of examples of why the soviet union/Russia is guilty of the tactic. It makes the article appear biased and too American-centric - since the only other major example is against Trump. It is fair enough to say that the term has become popular with American commentators which have accused Russia of extensive utilisation of the tactic. But it is not fair to be a tirade (accepting their arguments as fact) that Russia does this. The history section needs to start with its origins and early use. Then move to the use of American commentators against Russia and later against Trump. It needs to be balanced with a section of how others have used the term.SandrinaHatman (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The term is certainly popular and thus deserves an article as a result of notability. I don't believe it qualifies as an informal fallacy though. Agreed, it needs a lot of work. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

>The article needs a lot of work on it because it completely ignores the origin of the word

☆They added IRA-related origin☆

Anyway, it mixes up "you too" fallacy with other kinds of "what about" questions, where "what about" is synonymic to "what do you think about me doing Y instead of X", or "What if"?
 * Thing is, literal for "What about" beginning of a sentence in Russian is "Как насчёт" - but, its widely used as synonym for "what if", "what do you think on" and "should we do [something else]".

So, in this sense, what about labelling "What about" as a possible Runglish quirk? Uchyotka (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a recent invention. I can remember my father in the 1950s passing along a story: a Russian was showing off a Moscow subway station to a visiting American, extolling its beauty, the speed with which it had been built, how well it would protect citizens from imperialist bombs, etc etc. After a few minutes the American observed that while they were talking he had seen no trains. The guide went on to extoll the patriotic virtue of the subway engineers, and after a few more minutes the American asked "where are the trains?" The Russian went on to brag about the number of miles in the system. The American asked about the trains again, and the Russian exploded: "And what about the lynchings in the South?"
 * Obviously this is not a Reliable Source, but it does indicate that this is not a "recent invention." ch (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the contention is that the phrase "whataboutism" is a recent invention. Of course, the tu quoque fallacy has been discussed for hundreds of years. And you are lynching Negroes is different again. Your example shows that the joke was known in the USA in the 1950s. It doesn't show that it was known in the USSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? So you're indeed implying whenever I use "What about" beginning in a sentence like ones I listed above it's "whataboutism"/"whataboutery" for your standards now?


 * You brought up "And you are lynching Negroes", rephrased as "And what about the lynchings in the South?" question. I as expecting to see if the very use of "what about" in English should be avoided on neutral occasions, whether "what about" sounds rude. I use it as something neutral now (with examples shown, but I also wonder f it wasn't neutral in English all aloung.Uchyotka (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

No reason for distinct article on this topic; should be section of Tu Quoque page
Nothing in the article indicates a clear distinction between "whataboutism" and "tu quoque". As it is a synonym or minor variant it should be a section of tu quoque, which is more widely known and taught. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the "and you are lynching Negroes", while notable as a Cold War phenomenon, is classic tu quoque and nothing else. It has no connection to the faddish American pseudo-term "whataboutism" (which it predates) except insofar as the latter is a synonym or near-equivalent of the universally understood term tu quoque. This whole article is malconstructed and should be a short section of the tu quoque page. 73.149.246.232 (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like tu quoque needs to hire a better PR firm, because whataboutism is getting all the ink. There's been so much written about whataboutism in the last 12 years that we would be derelict in our duties not to summarize it all for our readers. The sheer mass of whataboutism text would overwhelm the tu quoque page, so it's much better having its own page. Binksternet (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet - it is an example of tu quoque in action/real life. It is a populist term and it has a rich cultural history and it does deserve its own page. However, it needs to be nodded to on the tu quoque page and it needs to be rewritten to be more neutral and less American-centric and anti-Russian. I would also argue that whataboutery needs a page, because half the world uses that term (more common in eg UK). It is somewhat arbitrary to define one term as primary (because it is more common in US) and not have the other.SandrinaHatman (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Binksternet and SandrinaHatman. Teishin (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely deserves its own article. -- Valjean (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep separate. I disagree with the claim that this is "anti-Russian."  The sources document it as policy, and note its use as a rhetorical device of the current former occupant of The White House.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

'''Confused. Probably should be redirected to "tu quoque".' Whataboutism'' is a weird word. It sounds as if it calls out any question of "What about X?" type, such as:

I don't remember going tu quoque, just don't like the misleading name. You probably should insert this data into "tu quoque" lengthy article. Uchyotka (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC) ADDITIONAL INFO: Actually, I just realized deleting "Whataboutism" article isn't a good idea, since should "whataboutism" be not about all "what about" question, but about "what about you?" ones, it should be mentioned somewhere. Uchyotka (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What about the fact I use phone to post this?
 * What about the fact it sounds as if it's a disnomer on any question starting "What about"?
 * What about discussing this topic further?
 * What about eating ice-cream and enjoying last days of August?
 * The claim The sheer mass of whataboutism text would overwhelm the tu quoque page, so it's much better having its own page. is invalid, since an article can have sub-pages. In this sense, "Whataboutism" should be Tu Quoque's sub-article, since it's, basically, a synonym. This way, the article keeps existing without overwhelming Tu Quoque. It's already overwhelming anyway. Uchyotka (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should be kept separate. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Forbes.com contributor (Mark Adomanis)
7&6=thirteen, in regard to your reversion at Special:Diff/1013422059, the Forbes.com contributor Mark Adomanis is not a reliable source, as content published by Forbes.com non-staff contributors receive minimal editorial oversight. Adomanis is non-notable, and is not a subject-matter expert. The claim is not verifiable, and should be removed, unless you have a reliable source to support it. Do you have a reliable source to support the claim? —  Newslinger  talk   15:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Did you read the source?  Not unlike here.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the cited source is subpar, the claim in question ([Critics] argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard) is not particularly extraordinary and appears to be directly supported by the other citations in the paragraph (granted, those aren't the best quality either, but other, better sources in that section such as make very similar claims). signed,Rosguill talk 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I did read Adomanis's piece. The piece is authored by a non-notable individual (who is not a subject-matter expert) and did not undergo adequate editorial review. It is both unreliable and undue, and should not be cited in the article. As concluded in 12 previous noticeboard discussions, Forbes.com non-staff contributors are the equivalent of self-published sources because they are not subject to sufficient editorial oversight. This lack of editorial oversight has been well-documented by the Columbia Journalism Review, the Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News, and The Outline.In Special:Diff/1013535543, I've replaced the citation with two higher-quality sources: "Sure, whataboutism seems bad, but have you considered other bad things?" from The Outline (authored by Vincent Bevins) and "'Whataboutism'? Not if you are guilty" from the South China Morning Post . In contrast to the Forbes.com contributor piece, the pieces from The Outline and the SCMP did undergo adequate editorial review. —  Newslinger  talk   03:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead section issue, and a comment on notability
As other discussions on this talk page indicate, this would be far from the only issue with this article. But I'd like to point out (nitpick?) the last sentence of the lead section: "Whataboutism has been adopted by other politicians and countries and has become a signature of the Trump administration."

My first issue with this is that it's unsourced. That aside, even with a source, I believe that the topic of this application of the logical fallacy is much too broad to single out a specific example in the lead section.

Also, I'll throw in my two-bit opinion about whether this should be its own article. It seems to be chronicling examples of the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy, used by prominent figures in relation to the Cold War and recent US politics. But where does that belong in the encyclopedia? I'm not sure. It seems that the prevailing convention for fallacy-related articles is that the logical description of the fallacy is in its own article, and notable/common invocations of the fallacy get their own articles with details about the relevant social/historical/political (etc.) context. And that seems appropriate in most cases. This one perhaps needs a few issues addressed. Frogging101 (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed the reference to Trump from the lead, as it isn't justified.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with the opinion. It seems some people still mistakingly blend Soviet-era joke And you are lynching Negroes with day-to-day use of "and what about X" question. Uchyotka (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand about whataboutism: Person/Group A does X. Person/Group B does X (or something B argues is similar to X). A calls out B for doing X. But if B points out A also did X, it's whataboutism and therefore bad. Kind of seems that whoever makes accusations first is automatically the winner. [Although, what's the term for the 'what about' argument where A criticizes B for X, and B's response is "What about some other unrelated thing someone else is doing? That's as bad or worse, why aren't you criticizing them instead?" Similar to the complaint someone gives about getting a speeding ticket when the cop should be arresting real criminals.] 147.226.214.239 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, the "speeding ticket" analogy is a cool idea. It gets even cooler once Broken windows theory gets into play; when "that's the idea to scare the criminal folk by properly fining speeding drivers like you" answer can be expected from the cop. Uchyot (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous
Whataboutism was about the primary argument used by people supporting the Iraq war. It was used to defend torture and forgo the Geneva conventions. This is probably true of every single conflict in human history.

There's no reason to single out the USSR and Trump in this. I despise Trump as much as any person, but I don't have to make shit up to hate him. I consider him a racist, authoritarian, etc.

For Bush supporters it was, what about Bill Clinton? For Trump supporters it's, what about Obama or Hillary? Annoying, but pretty much par for the course.

The timing of this entry is very suspicious, with the neo-McCarthyism going on in media. Anyone who doesn't support war is a Putin stooge. The New York Times ran a piece recently saying the African American minds are controlled by Putin, because they didn't vote for more wars.
 * I tend to agree. The article seems to be ideologically driven. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Anyone can whine and moan, do you have any actual improvements to the page to propose? Because if not, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Plot twist: there is no standalone entity "whataboutism", it's just an adaptation of Latin "Tu Quoque" phrase for English speakers, who always use literal "you too" in polite meaning, so they need another English translation name for Tu Quo' fallacy. Uchyotka (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I second this. Not a quality article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.35.111 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am back. Again, this page is ridiculous; it looks like someone was requested to make a long compilation of mentions of "whataboutism" word; while, AFAIK, it's just an ironically used "-ism" to make fun of extensive, massive tu quoque use. So, yeah, "soapbox"-like article. It should be shortened. Uchyot (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Note the semi-protected status after Trump is extensively added as a sole example for the US. Totally not biased at all, Wikipedia.

Russia's response on the Ryanair Flight 4978
I've forgotten my password and cannot edit the article, so I'll just leave this here - another example on post-USSR whataboutism from Russian authorities, their official response to the Ryanair Flight 4978 incident refers to the Evo Morales grounding incident.

It is shocking that the West calls the incident in Belarusian airspace 'shocking'," Foreign Ministry spokewoman Maria Zakharova wrote on Facebook. "Either (they) should be shocked by ... the forced (landing) in Austria of the Bolivian president's plane at the request of the United States ... Or (they) should not be shocked by similar behaviour by others."

I consider it to be a red herring, many of us finds both incidents to be shocking.

89.8.185.144 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC) (formerly known as User:tobixen)

Russia sections
Doing some condensing and cleanup. Significant repetition, citation overkill, unreliable sources, and unsourced claims. - Batsarentbugs (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * serious WP:RS issues in the Post-Soviet Russia section. heavy reliance on op-eds and editorials in violation of the WP rules stating these claims must be attributed to the op-ed author. Worse, this claim: "Russian public relations strategies combined whataboutism with other Soviet tactics, including disinformation and active measures." is given three sources. one does not support the statement. (i'm saving this one because it's a good source that can be used elsewhere.) the second is a paper published by a think-tank, not a RS, and the third is a separate paper that simply quotes the think tank paper. possibly intentionally misleading writing by the previous editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batsarentbugs (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * examples from the Crimea section can be moved into main Russia area. more repetition here and not enough depth for its own section - Batsarentbugs (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CoryChass. Peer reviewers: CoryChass.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Defense
It seems to me that some mentions in the defense sections are not about supporting whataboutism, but about distinguishing it from legitimate criticism (thus, defense of legitimate criticism). — Paleo Neonate  – 19:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

A possible solution may be to rename the subsection, perhaps "Contrasting with legitimate criticism" or "Legitimate criticism"... Of course, the main distinction is that whataboutism is an evasive deflection argument, more than addressing a real problem in its proper context. — Paleo Neonate  – 19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Trump section
Even more repetition and incorrect citing of op-eds. Several sources were duplicates, listed multiple times under different footnote numbers. Keeping the relevant quotes but cutting the section down. Charlottesville section and the discussion on the 'alt left' and 'alt center' etc is only tangentially related and doesn't belong here. no cited source connects this episode to or calls it 'whataboutism.' - Batsarentbugs (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I have a request to add some more, please. I have just realized there is another example of "X? what about Y?" by Trump: his initial reaction to the coronavirus. Yahoo news mentions that, Reuters mentions that with "Like the flu?" headline, Foxnews.com also goes in this way as well with its soft word "downplays", maybe... 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022
Could you please add the following paragraph, as this seems to be necessary to avoid any confusion between legal concepts and requirements and whataboutism. Thanks.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: The below proposal contains now some references to reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. Also the wording was updated. Please review this updated proposal. Thanks.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is still just original research. You need to find secondary sources that discuss whataboutism and rule of law, rather than drawing your own conclusions from primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Update2: Another source added, hopefully sufficient to support the argument. Please review again. Thanks.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This has been open for over a month, and it does not appear there is consensus for the change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Demarcation between legal concepts and requirements and whataboutism
The rule of law is a legal concept, which requires equality before the law. All subjects are to be accountable to the same laws and the laws are to be applied fairly. There are also specific anti-discrimination laws, which require comparison of treatment. The Equality Act 2010 for example prohibits discrimination, which is defined as a less favourable treatment for some compared to others, based on defined categories. The law states "A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others". Legal concepts like the rule of law, equality before the law and specific anti-discrimination laws are distinct from and not in support of the logical fallacy of whataboutism. Peach and Bárd point out that "rule of law problems and/or violations in other countries cannot justify the dismantlement of the rule of law in one’s country". 77.101.165.75 (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes in Origin Section
"Zimmer says the term gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict between Ireland and Northern Ireland."

Zimmer did not say that and there has never been a "conflict between Ireland and Northern Ireland". Better phrasing would be: "Zimmer says the term gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict between unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland". This is backed by the referenced article.

In the first line it says "the term originated in the United Kingdom and Ireland". This is problematic and should be rephrased.

There is Wikipedia style guides for this I think either saying "the term originated in Northern Ireland" or saying "the term originated in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom" would be preferable. The first is more accurate, the second is less ambiguous (United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland) and with alphabetical ordering.

D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Incongruous & Irrelevant in Soviet Section
Is, laughably, a thinly veiled attempt at whataboutism inserted into an article about the same. The following should be removed:

“In her book, Security Threats and Public Perception, author Elizaveta Gaufman called the whataboutism technique "A Soviet/Russian spin on liberal anti-Americanism", comparing it to the Soviet rejoinder, "And you are lynching negroes".[73] Foreign Policy supported this assessment.[74] In 2016, Canadian columnist Terry Glavin asserted in the Ottawa Citizen that Noam Chomsky used the tactic in an October 2001 speech, delivered after the September 11 attacks, that was critical of US foreign policy.[75]” 2600:8807:4069:3C00:D4C2:7863:2677:A07C (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Why particularly should that be removed? The whole article is questionable.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)