Talk:Whataboutism

Some thoughts about this article:

'1)' Isn't the term "whataboutism" itself a propaganda term?

'2)' While you get thousands of hits when searching for "Soviet propaganda" on Google Scholar, you get only _four_ hits when searching for "whataboutism", all of them from 2012 or later. All the references did either lead to the Economist article from 2008, or to some article written after 2008, which did not give any references where it had the term from. The earliest mention that I found was this blog post from 2007: http://www.edwardlucas.com/blog/page/39/

• Edward Lucas's blog post from 2007 was actually citing The Economist's article from 2007: http://www.economist.com/node/10049754 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.139.124 (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)? If it is mentioned in the relevant literature, but I just didn't find it because I'm too bad at finding the references, would someone please provide citations from the relevant literature?

'3)' Why is this article filed under "hypocrisy"? This can be misunderstood that "whataboutism" is a form of hypocrisy, whereas it is actually accusing a person of hypocrisy in reaction to being accused by that person. The same goes for "the pot calling the kettle black". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larkusix (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

'4)' One additional thought. Citogenesis - Relevant illustration of the problem by XKCD: https://xkcd.com/978/ Larkusix (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone remember Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• If an article is crap, it needs to be discussed, if that requires a bit of debate so be it. The article needs to provide more context of the development of the term as propaganda in its own right and removed from under "hypocrisy". If SublimeWik has something to contribute based on published material that can be cited then they should do so. That the contributing editor is the author of referenced material is neither here nor there. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • The 3 points by Larkusix show why this article is problematic: The earliest known usage of the term 'whataboutism' is 2007, by Edward Lucas of The Economist (The Kremlin’s useful idiots, Oct 29th 2007). It's his recollection of student debates at the LSE as an undergraduate in 1980. He claims the "approach by the Kremlin's useful idiots was to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It was called 'whataboutism'". In his 2008 article Lucas claims "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'." The 2008 article is the key source for this page, referred to as an authority by secondary sources such as Miriam Elder in her The Guardian article (2012). Ascribing it to the 'Kremlin's useful idiots' in student debate seems inconsistent with the later 'Soviet propagandists' claim. There is no documented usage of the term in the Cold War era, so it seems to have first appeared in 2007, contrary to the claims in the earliest sources. More troubling is an earlier, well-documented term whataboutery, with the same definition and ascribed to known individuals, which has documented usage since at least 1978: (Hansard search for 'whataboutery') did have a Wikipedia page but it's been redirected to this page. I'd suggest 1) the first known usage in 2007 as ascribed to LSE student debates should be on the page, along with the later usage by the same author ascribing it to trained Soviet propagandists, and 2) the page for the older term Whataboutery should be restored. That appears to be the original term, with a proper definition, as given in Hansard quotes (1978, 1998) or cited by the BBC (2001): "Cardinal Cahal Daly once said: 'Whataboutery is the commonest form of moral evasion in Ireland today' Harry W1234 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • whataboutery was not an article, but a redirect to Fallacy of relative privation (pporly refernced, boith). But I may agree that Edward Lucas "recollection" was inexact, and probably it was indeed "whataboutery". Does anybody care send an email to Lucas? - üser:Altenmann >t 06:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right on the page history for Whataboutery it's a simple redirect rather than a delete & redirect. I could add reputable sources for that (Hansard, BBC, etc). @edwardlucas was asked about his use of the term 'whataboutism' and 'whataboutery' last year: He said "I agree about 'whataboutery' but google seems to show 'whataboutism' differently. Happy to be corrected.". So I've 1) Split the 'tu quoque' definition from usage keeping definition as opening paragraph; 2) inserted 2007 usage by Lucas at The Economist (reference to The Economist and his own blog) 3) Followed by his 2008 usage, from which contemporary use and several other sources for this page seem to be derived. I think it's better to split definition from usage and helps indicate the term's emergence in 2007-08, before being popularised in western media since 2012. Harry W1234 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This article should either be pulled outright or heavily rewritten. Virtually all references I see to "whataboutism" link back the article in the Economist. None provide any real documentation all simply make the assertion that it was a tactic used by the Soviets. Even the example provided in the Economist article didn't actually name anyone so it's not possible to track back the source. I would rather see a rewrite of the article explaining this term was attributed to the USSR but lacks documentation and may be just a smear tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.3.0.209 (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is just a derivation of the Tu quoque logical fallacy, similar to the Pot calls the kettle black. If A criticizes B for something, and B really did what A is accusing B of, is it relevant that A has done the same thing? Depends what question you are asking. Did B do something that is wrong? If what I have said above is true, then he has. Is A a hypocrite? Yes. Does that make it right for B do do the thing that was wrong? No, but it hurts As moral authority to castigate B. Ideally, C, a principle who has his "hands clean" of whatever act we are talking about would intervene and castigate both for doing something wrong. The point is saying someone else has done something wrong, even your accuser, does not absolve you of doing something wrong. IF we concede the point that it is wrong to support foreign governments that abuse human rights, and the Bahraini monarchy and the Assad regime fit that catagory, then the US is wrong for supporting the Bahraini monarchy and Russia is wrong for supporting Assad.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

The very first sentence of the 2008 article in The Economist explains quite clearly that it was NOT coined by The Economist itself. Sagecandor (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The Analysis section is very repetitive of the intro paragraphs. The thorough citation of references is nice, but it doesn't really "analyze" the topic just restates the terminology and that it is a very unhealthy way to discuss problems. A discussion of the psychology of the technique (why it has been so successful) or a deeper look at specific examples. A thorough discussion of how the technique can be countered would be *very* interesting and useful. 50.53.76.183 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, take a moment to read the page on Wikipedia, WP:LEAD. Sagecandor (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Elder

This article mentions the controversy about Elder's article on dry cleaning. The same incident is detailed in the Miriam Elder article, which also mentions whataboutism. This seems to be a storm in a teacup. It also seems to be an attempt to build up this article with flimsy material.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree re 'storm in a teacup'. It seems any article or blogpost using the term 'whataboutism' counts as a source, here. This entire article oughtn't exist, to be honest. Its sources mostly stem from a single article in the Economist, and the article seems to try to make a distinction between whataboutism and whataboutery that does not exist in reality. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, the Edward Lucas (journalist) article says he was famous for coining the word "whataboutism". "Whataboutism" is famous because of Lucas. So much of this article is circular. It's a classic case of neologism.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've removing this as there seems to be consensus that it is trivial.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A "consensus" between yourself and one other person from last year. Not convincing. The info has nothing to do with whether it is "trivial", it has to do with being a direct and simple example of what the topic of the article is talking about. The whole point is that it showcases a reversal of argument from a Russian government official when criticism is applied. Silverseren^C 20:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

No one else responded in five months. The dry cleaning incident is simply not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Silence is only a consensus until someone disagrees. Someone disagrees. And yeah, those examples appear to directly relate the the article and its topic. Stickee (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with comments above by Silver seren and Stickee, directly relevant to this topic of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm frustrated because I've never succeeded in getting my anecdote about dry cleaning published. What about that, huh?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge with "And_you_are_lynching_Negroes" page?

I think this page and the page And you are lynching Negroes should be eventually merged. I believe they cover the exact same issue, during the same time period as well. Am I missing something?

Bzzzing (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

A merge was discussed at the Lynching page recently and rejected.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That page seems to be a very specific incident of whataboutism (albeit a very infamous one). It's fine to have an article on a more specific event, but this one is broader than that. And doesn't necessarily only cover the Soviet Union. I don't believe they should be merged. Silverseren^C 19:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose, agree with everything stated above in comment by Silver seren. Sagecandor (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Statement of fact in WP is sourced by Teen Vogue opinion piece

(I am changing the original title of this because it is misleading about the actual problem)DeadEyeSmile (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

After researching the issue further I realized that my initial claim in this section is incorrect. Please look below for "Please ignore my preceding argument" for my current argument DeadEyeSmile (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

http://www.teenvogue.com/story/trump-susan-rice-whataboutism-thigh-high-politics

I have removed the Teen Vogue article because it does not show an example of Whataboutism. It claims it does but it does not support those claims. Here is the premise: "Trump is working hard to sensationalize the implications of Rice’s unmasking, specifically amping up its connection to his unfounded claim that the Obama administration had his “wires tapped.”"

The author goes on to state: ""Trump is quoted in Politico saying that the probe of Rice’s intent means his notorious wiretapping tweet “is turning out to be true,”"

This is a non-sequitur. His claim that this is more evidence for his earlier claim is NOT whataboutism.

The author also states: "The same tactic is clear in his repeated attempts to stir suspicion around Hillary Clinton, as if her moral missteps might absolve him of the possibility of wrongdoing." There is no specific example here, just a general claim.

and

"Trump’s tactic of shifting focus to left-wing figures like Rice and Clinton can be best understood through a Soviet Union propaganda technique known as “whataboutism.” In short, it’s Trump saying, “Oh yeah? My administration is riddled with conflicts of interests, potential collusion with Russia, and my belligerent refusal to release my tax returns? What about [bad thing a Democrat did]?”"

This is a straw man argument. Nothing specific, simply claims made by the author and not something Trump himself said.

DeadEyeSmile (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you intended to belittle the source, but instead you have shown the cited source to be relevant and applicable. I have restored the text and cite. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I made no attempt to belittle the source. I have simply attempted to show that the source does not prove the claim that it makes and is therefore not a good source.

You have provided no explanation how the unsourced claims in the linked article are "relevant and applicable". Please point to any part of the article that shows an example of whataboutism. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to "point to any part of the article that shows an example of whataboutism" because the author does so explicitly. She's not hiding the examples or making the reader ferret them out. The source starts with the title "Trump’s Treatment of the Susan Rice Story Is Classic 'Whataboutism'" making it relevant and on topic. The story by Lauren Duca continues by describing how Trump uses the techniques of whataboutism to evade scrutiny, shift focus and deflect blame. I don't know what you're looking at, but I'm seeing a professional journalist writing an accurate and relevant article about the topic, published in a respected source. Your argument is empty; you don't have a leg to stand on. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore my preceding argument, which was based on a misunderstanding of the way WP works. After researching it, I realized that this issue was the following. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a statement of fact made in the article: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice."

The source article is an opinion piece so please explain how someone's opinion can be used as a source for a statement of fact. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a professional work by a veteran journalist, not an opinion piece.

I'm curious: Do you think that Trump, when under fire, does not frequently shift the topic to Obama or Clinton? Because he's famous for that. If you don't think he does that then we're done here. Binksternet (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The source article is an opinion piece. I quote from the article:

"Thigh-High Politics is an op-ed column by Teen Vogue writer Lauren Duca"

From the Wikipedia article on Op-Ed:

"An op-ed ... is a written prose piece typically published by a newspaper or magazine which expresses the opinion of a named author usually not affiliated with the publication's editorial board."

I see that you are now stating your political beliefs in an attempt to counter my argument, which is based on facts. I quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

And

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia..."

You have revealed that you are biased against Trump and therefore have a vested interest that this article not be changed. You cannot argue honestly due to your biases so I ask you to recuse yourself. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 03:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

So this is the issue you want to spend your energy fighting on? The question of whether Trump evades questions of his guilt or complicity by shifting the focus in the manner of whataboutism? You know he does this, of course. It's common knowledge. Even people who support him will admit that he has been known to change the subject to Clinton or Obama when he's given a question he doesn't want to answer. I find it pretty strange that anybody would choose to fight against this obvious truth. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

You continue to try to deflect from my point. I couldn't care less what Trump's behavior is. This is not a political debate, despite the way that you keep trying to make it about politics. The sentence I quoted above is an attempt to support a statement of fact with an opinion piece, pure and simple. It weakens the article and violates a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You quoted the policy page WP:NPOV which encourages us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The connection between Trump and Whataboutism has been published by reliable sources, so we include a paragraph or two about it. Editor bias is a separate question from whether we include this stuff or not. We include it because it's been publshed. The "bias" part is a matter of how we summarize it and how much weight we give to it. Your aim to get rid of the Trump stuff altogether, so that in itself is a contrary to the policy you quoted above. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Again you misrepresent my point in an attempt to win the argument when you have already shown that you are biased against Trump and therefore are not able to participate in this discussion neutrally. Your statement that '(I) "aim to get rid of the Trump stuff altogether"' is a lie. Since you continue to misrepresent what I have said, I will repeat my point here:

This is my argument:

The article makes this statement of fact: "When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice." It then links to the Teen Vogue article, an opinion piece, as a source for this statement. A statement of fact must be supported by facts, not opinions.

You have attempted to debate that my claim is incorrect and you have attempted to redirect the discussion to other things but your arguments have failed:

First you tried to claim that the article is "professional work by a veteran journalist, not an opinion piece."I have proven that to be wrong using the article itself.

Second you claim that I am wrong because of your political opinion. "Do you think that Trump, when under fire, does not frequently shift the topic to Obama or Clinton? Because he's famous for that. If you don't think he does that then we're done here." I have pointed out that this has nothing to do with politics, and that you are demonstrating bias against the subject. This is an attempt to redirect away from my point.

Third you put forth a straw man version of my argument, saying that I "aim to get rid of the Trump stuff altogether". I have not challenged any of the statements in the article about Trump which are supported by their sources, so your claim is false.

You have had three tries to refute my argument and all have failed. I have shown that the sentence quoted above is a statement of fact, which is not supported by the opinion stated in the source. I ask you once more to address my argument above without attempting to dismiss it, deflect from it, misrepresent it, or insert your opinions about the subject. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The question shouldn't about whether Trump engages in Whataboutism. It should be about why there is blatant bias here. Wikipedia's standards are being maligned by this. The section title should be "Examples of Whataboutism in American Politics" and should include various examples, including ones by Trump. If this section is allowed, why not have 300 additional sections titled "Hillary Clinton and Whataboutism" or "Barack Obama and Whataboutism". Its obviously partisan, and whoever keeps editing the article has indeed shown their bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.246.20.2 (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is blatantly biased from conception. It suggests that the USSR and Russia are unique in committing the tu quoque fallacy, whereas the fallacy is common and has been recognised for centuries, and it suggests the term "Whataboutism" relates to the Cold War, even though there is no documentation that it was used in that period. Then this about Trump. Obviously the alleged Trump-Russia connection prompted this, because otherwise the critique of Trump could be located (if at all) at the tu quoque article. Now, it's suggesting that Trump is the only politician that does this, whereas, obviously, this is routine. So overlaid on the anti-Communist bias, the anti-Russian bias, we have this anti-Trump bias in a witches' brew of unexamined prejudice. Wikipedia completely jumped the shark when Trump was elected and has started creating an article for every blooper, such as Bowling Green massacre and covfefe. Now this article has stopped being a Russian-bashing exercise, and now Trump is the pinata. There is no reason for this article to exist apart for a few editors to vent their frustrations at the rest of the world.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tu quoque and whataboutism are not the same thing. Tu quoque aims to undermine the opponent's argument by pointing out that the opponent's past actions are inconsistent with his current argument. Whataboutism differs by introducing a red herring argument involving irrelevant, widely tangential or patently false claims, and possibly by introducing a balance fallacy equating the irrelevant/tangential/false argument with the opponent's argument. Whataboutism aims to derail the argument entirely, whereas tu quoque assumes that the debate will continue. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

DeadEyeSmile - look, it's not your job to start an argument with the source. Please see original research. The source is either reliable or not. If you want to discuss it's reliability ask at WP:RSN. In the meantime, quit it with the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read through my point above (under "This is my argument:"). I'm not starting an argument with the source. There is a statement of fact in the wikipedia article and the source that it links to is an opinion piece. Read through my extensive discussion of this above and my reasons why I made the change I did. Whether the source is reliable or not is not the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeSmile (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're not happy about Teen Vogue, then The Daily Beast makes the same statement: [1]. Stickee (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not being "happy" about it isn't a reason to doubt the professionalism of the Teen Vogue piece. There are lots of sources we can draw from (I just added USA Today and Foreign Policy) but the Teen Vogue piece is perfectly fine. The author draws a very clear parallel between Trump's tactics and Soviet whataboutism, the comparison being accurate, not opinion. Opinion would be whether the soup tastes salty enough, or if the style of the couch doesn't go with the curtains. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

You are still missing my point. The author states her opinion about Trump and Whataboutism and the WP article treats it as fact. A more apt metaphor would be for me to state as fact "Onion soup is better than Tomato soup" and then link to an article where someone says that they hate Tomato soup and Onion soup is clearly better. This is clearly spelled out in WP:NPOV, as I have mentioned before. You are adding nothing new, just restating your argument that I have already refuted above. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Binksternet I see that you have added two more sources, neither of which supports this sentence in the WP article:

"When asked to defend his behavior or accused of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and even U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice."

If the "Teen Vogue piece is perfectly fine" (I don't agree that it is) then why muddy the water further by adding two more totally unrelated sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadEyeSmile (talk • contribs) 00:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed Teen Vogue myself at edit [2]. If there are better sources out there, and there are, as noted, above, let's stick to the stronger sources. Best to add more stronger sources to back up such facts, instead. Sagecandor (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky Example

(Moving this into its own section since it is different than the discussion above)

Also, a quick note that the last addition would be WP:OR since the specified source doesn't mention "whataboutism" anywhere in the article. Stickee (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Replying to this comment by DeadEyeSmile on my talk page: "Hi I have seen your comment about my addition regarding Noam Chomsky being OR but I don't fully understand it. Are you saying that the source has the have the phrase "Whataboutism" in it? Would it be better to link to another news source that discusses the op-ed written by Chomsky instead of the op-ed itself? Thanks" [3].

Correct. The source you specified is only about hypocrisy, a different concept to whataboutism. It would be original research to say that the Chomsky case applies to whataboutism. If you can find a source that describes that particular case as whataboutism, then it wouldn't be OR. Stickee (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Stickee. I have found another example by Chomsky with a supporting source that mentions whataboutism explicitly and added it accordingly. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed: Removed Noam Chomsky as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT from one source about one person giving one speech. Sagecandor (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added it back, myself, to the Analysis section. Please see DIFF LINK. Any more than that, to create an entire subsection in this article, based on only one (1) source, is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT violation. Sagecandor (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for helping me understand the correct way to portray the information. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@DeadEyeSmile:No problem, and you're welcome !!! Sagecandor (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Merge into tu quoque

Whataboutism is a term coined in 2008 to describe what the USSR did. But, there was already an existing term which means the same thing-- tu quoque. Instead of having two articles meaning the same thing, why not merge them? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This idea was floated, but dismissed, when the article was kept at AfD a while back: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whataboutism. There shouldn't be a merge, since tu quoque is the general technique, while this article is about a specific application of it. Stickee (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a specific application of it, though. It's just a name given to something that had happened decades before. During the cold war, no one used this term. It IS the same thing as tu quoque, and a term created by Newsweek shouldn't get a separate article just because they gave an old phrase a new name. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

WhatA is a lot less obscure, and the merger would greatly dilute the most common usage.--Galassi (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's very faddish. If someone starts calling the yo-yo a vo-vo, do we need a new article that documents each use of the term vo-vo? WP:NEOLOGISM applies.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The two topics are not the same. Whataboutism adds a red herring claim and possibly a balance fallacy to the tu quoque tactic. The two tactics have different aims, with whataboutism aiming to derail the whole debate while tu quoque stays within the debate. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with Stickee that the two articles are completely different applications. Agree with Galassi that the merge would greatly dilute the most common usage. Agree with Binksternet that the two tactics have different aims and histories. Sagecandor (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Soviet Union sidebar is directly relevant to this article

Soviet Union sidebar is directly relevant to this article.

This article defines the term "Whataboutism" as directly relevant to the Soviet Union in the very first sentence.

Soviet Union sidebar should remain. Sagecandor (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence: Whataboutism is a propaganda technique first used by the Soviet Union, in its dealings with the Western world. is false on its face. Whataboutism is an element of rhetoric that has been used by every politician and every nation for millennia (and even, according to the NPR source, by schoolchildren! ). Apparently an Economist journalist in 2008 wrote that it was a "typical" tactic of the Soviet Union vs the United States; this may well be the case but it's also a "typical" tactic of China vs. Japan, France vs. Germany, Israel vs. Palestine, Iraq vs. Iran, and pretty much every pair of nations who ever waged a hot or cold war against each other. A more correct first sentence would be: Whataboutism is a neologism coined by The Economist journalist Edward Lucas in 2008 in reference to the rhetorical technique of pointing out similar misdeeds in your opponent's behaviour compared to what they accuse you of, hoping to focus on their hypocrisy instead of the matter at hand.

The sidebar about the Soviet Union says nothing about this phenomenon, even though it includes Soviet propaganda. As it stands, displaying this sidebar makes no sense in this article. The journalist coined the term almost 17 years after the Soviet Union was dissolved, in a bid to shame Russia; why not include a Russia sidebar then? or a journalism sidebar? or an international relations sidebar? or a politics sidebar? or a fallacies sidebar? or a rhetoric sidebar? or a philosophy sidebar?

I noticed this article following the opening of a WP:DR/N case; I didn't want to touch the text until that dispute is resolved, however the Soviet Union sidebar is really misleading for readers, that's why I removed it. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Most of this article is not about the USSR — there are only two sentences in the body — so it is very misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems POV since most of the article is not about the USSR, heck way more is about Trump than the soviets. PackMecEng (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Entire overview section about Soviet. Soviet relevant article topic subject. We use soviet sidebar for soviet article here. Is soviet. Sagecandor (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Above arguments make no sense. They are irrational. And illogical. Article has entire section about Soviet Union origination of the practice itself. It is directly related to the Soviet Union. It started there. It was propagated by them. It is referred to in its practice in virtually all secondary sources that discuss this subject. Sagecandor (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

There are two sentences in the body of the article about the USSR, relating to an article by Ilya Ehrenberg in 1947. The rest of that section is actually about post-Soviet Russia.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, will work on more research. The post-Soviet Russia is directly related to Soviet Russia itself, as all intelligence operations techniques from KGB influenced later FSB. Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, there are two sentences about the USSR. That's it! That doesn't justify having a Soviet Union sidebar, and we're not going to the hold the page until you do some research to prove your predetermined conclusions.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouting at me with false statements of fact not backed up by sources will not make them any less inaccurate. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• The sidebar seems an overblown inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the opinion. The sidebar is included in specific section only where it merits inclusion of same name of subsection as name of sidebar. Sagecandor (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Not coined by The Economist

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

The very first sentence of the 2008 article in The Economist explains quite clearly that it was NOT coined by The Economist itself. Sagecandor (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you posting the same comment everywhere, including in the archive? We have discussed this before. The Economist claims that the term was used during the Cold War, but we have never found an example of this. Economist writer, Edward Lucas, wrote a blog prior to that article, which also used the term, but linked it to university debates rather than Soviet propaganda as such. This is the earliest mention we have been able to find. While it might be true that the Economist didn't literally coin the term, it did put it into circulation. If it was in use during the Cold War, it never seems to have found its way into print, and Lucas seems to be the only one who remembers it.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

User provides zero sources to back up their false claims and WP:No original research violations. Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• An independent, secondary source for this aspect is probably advisable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • We have the quote from The Economist itself. Which is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, volume XX, p 191, has an entry for "whatabout", but not "whataboutism". That's a reference. It clearly was not used widely in the Cold War. It wasn't recognised by the OED as a word in 1989, the year the Berlin Wall came down. Lucas may say he heard it in his student days, and maybe he did. But that's not particularly notable. If Sagecandor looked through the archives (which clearly he has), he would see that other editors have also tried to find evidence of this term during the Cold War and came up with nothing. That too is a reference. Absence is evidence. It is illogical and unfair to say that finding something is a reference (source, citation etc) and not finding something is original research. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to back it up. If you say that "whataboutism" was commonly used in the Cold War, it is you (and other people who agree with you) that should supply a source. Simply because Lucas claims he thinks he remembers clean-shaven evangelicals at the LSE using the term, doesn't mean it entered currency. I don't doubt that someone somewhere said "whataboutism" - but really so what? It wasn't used widely in the Cold War, and I think we all know that.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent point. We're back to WP:NEOLOGISM and should introduce the word as such, not write an essay about political rhetoric, there are other articles for this. — JFG ^talk 13:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Both these comments, and the suggestion to call it a "neologism", are violations of WP:No original research. We Wikipedians ourselves don't go digging in primary sources from OED from 1989, especially when they do NOT mention the subject of THIS article. Sagecandor (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There's OR and there's common sense. As was pointed out, the onus is on supporters of the non-neologism theory to find sources demonstrating usage of the term in Soviet times. Hearsay or faulty recollections from an Economist journalist are not enough, especially as the entire thrust of the article is based on this myth: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

No, the onus is NOT that way. The onus is on those violating WP:No original research to STOP VIOLATING NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Staff writer (31 January 2008). "Whataboutism". The Economist. Retrieved 3 July 2017. Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.

This quote by The Economist is quite clear. Secondary source = trumps WP:Original research. Period. Full stop. Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't know that staff writers at The Economist were infallible… Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This writer's admittedly catchy assertion is not evidence of what he claims. — JFG ^talk 20:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. As such, it is more reliable than personal opinions of Wikipedia users. Sagecandor (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Quotes in lede

@Sagecandor: I'm copyediting the article, and I was wondering if you might consider removing some of the quotes in the last sentence of the lede. Some seem a little redundant. In particular, I advise removing either the Foreign Policy/Guardian one, since they seem very similar ("national ideology" vs. "part of the national psyche"). The Kasparov and Moscow Times quotes are also not very helpful, in my opinion. Just wanted to bring this up with you rather than unilaterally remove it; I'm more of a multilateralist, myself GAB^gab 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Done. Removed the ones you suggested, at [4] and [5] and [6]. Sagecandor (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I've been going over the lede for a while, and I noticed the sentence,

Usage of the tactic extended to Russian leader Vladimir Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, and by Putin himself.

For starters, I've changed it to

Usage of the tactic extended to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his spokesman, Dmitry Peskov.

I assume that this should mean something like, "Putin and Peskov have also engaged in the tactic." `Thanks, GAB^gab 00:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Looks much better, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I gave the lede a brush-up, and it flows a bit better now. GAB^gab 00:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: You also might want to reword the first 3 sentences of the "Methods" section, since it's basically identical to the lede. Your call, of course. GAB^gab 00:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure best way to reword it, but the lede should NOT be its own new info, lede should only have info already repeated in article, per WP:LEAD. So rewording, tweaking, sure. But it's totally okay to repeat it in article body again. Sagecandor (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. Speaking of which, I noticed this sentence:

Throughout the time period of the Soviet Union, the word whataboutism came to be known to refer to the tactic as used by Soviet Union officials.

I am not sure if this adds anything; is there something I'm not getting? Thanks, GAB^gab 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Maybe you can reword to make it clearer. To mean, the term whataboutism came into use during the Soviet Union time period, due to prevalence of use of the tactic by Russian government officials. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying. GAB^gab 01:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of definition of the subject, particularly under the "Analysis" section. I think some of it could be profitably trimmed. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Trimmed in size, sure, removed, rather not. Maybe we can try to make it more concise and pithy while keeping the individual commentators analyses. Sagecandor (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Okay, I've done some trimming of that section, per your suggestions. I've referred back to your suggestions, in my edit summaries. Sagecandor (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DRN closed as "failed"

Just a note for the record: Robert McClenon closed the DRN case as "failed" since the article has been completely reworked since the filing, and editors here are still discussing the issues. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet:Article currently undergoing a helpful copyedit from the talented GeneralizationsAreBad through the process at the WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Sagecandor (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources for this sentence do not support it

Please read this before continuing. I am not claiming that the sources themselves are not notable or reliable or otherwise unsuitable in any way. I am claiming that the sentence is not supported by the content of these sources.

This is the sentence:

"When asked to defend his behavior or accusations of wrongdoing, Trump has frequently shifted the topic to Democratic Party figures, such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice."

It has three supporting links:

• Kurtzleben, Danielle (17 March 2017). "Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism NPR.

There is no mention of Obama, Clinton or Rice.

• Sullivan, Jake (7 February 2017). "The Slippery Slope of Trump’s Dangerous 'Whataboutism'". Foreign Policy.

There is no mention of Clinton or Rice.

Obama is mentioned but never in the context that Trump used him as the object of whataboutism. The closest quote says that his supporters do so: "Consider the response of Trump’s defenders to criticism of the immigration executive order: Barack Obama did it, too! "

• Leveille, David (January 24, 2017). "Russian journalist has advice for Americans covering Trump". USA Today.

Rice is not mentioned.

Clinton is not mentioned except in the context that Jake Sullivan is a "former Hillary Clinton State Department and campaign adviser"

Obama is never mentioned as an object of whataboutism.

I suggest that we either remove the sentence or find sources that show Trump using Obama, Rice and Clinton as the objects of whataboutism as the sentence claims. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: As per GOCE guidelines, I think it would be best for me to pause until this concern is resolved. Thanks, GAB^gab 22:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:Above user was wrong. All the citations were already present in the article, in the paragraph, in the sentences. I've added cites after every single comma and every single sentence and every single assertion. With quotes. To back up every single fact. Now should be much more clear. Please revisit now? Sagecandor (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You have changed the sentence to remove the reference to Susan Rice and properly sourced the references to Obama and Clinton now so there are no further objections to the sentence from me. DeadEyeSmile (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you !!! Sagecandor (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, good to know. I'll resume the ce, now that this has been resolved. GAB^gab 13:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Free-use licensed video

Free-use licensed video per email communication with holder of sole exclusive copyright of video, who has agreed to license it by free-use license, Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike.

However, will wait on adding it back to article, until after Wikimedia Commons discussion has concluded. Sagecandor (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of license status, this is a highly POV political video; I don't think it deserves inclusion in a neutral encyclopedia article. Especially as the lead image, it gives a strong impression that Wikipedia endorses the description of whataboutism presented in this work. I suggest keeping it out, but perhaps citing it with attribution to Euromaidan activists. — JFG ^talk 19:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The video matter-of-factly describes the subject. Sagecandor (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, come on! These "educational" videos are partisan propaganda by outspoken opponents to Russia, this is not encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 13:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User makes false claims and disparaging comments about a source, with no evidence. Sagecandor (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, why suddenly talk about people who disagree with you in the third person? Relax… First, the content itself is obviously partisan, only referring to "whataboutism" in the context of Russia or the Soviet Union. Second, the publisher, Euromaidan Press, is almost fully funded (see their 2016 annual report) by International Renaissance Foundation, an openly anti-Russian institution. What more proof do you want? — JFG ^talk 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User makes claims which rely on primary sources and violate WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump/Putin

Isn't it WP:UNDUE to dedicate a whole subsection to Donald Trump on this article since the expression existed for decades before Trump even ran for president? I mean, let's be honest here, whataboutism is not exclusive to Trump in modern times. This is supposed to be an article about the expression of Whataboutism, its general history and usage, not a Trump-related article. Also consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:COATRACK. Just because some prominent commentators and writers pointed out Trump uses the whataboutism technique, doesn't mean his connection to it will have historical significance in the future. Thoughts? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, historians looking back on this time might remark on the permanent shift Trump gave to the topic. I wouldn't remove the material because of concerns about recentism, since the future is unknown. Certainly we should stick to the main points, though, and not digress too far. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate for the subject. If it is shown that he is causing a great shift in the subject then he could be included. Until then Trump is given to much weight. Especially given how broad the subject is. It's an argument that has been used for a long time by basically everybody, Trump is not special in that. A couple sources making the connection does not warrant inclusion. PackMecEng (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's far more than a couple of sources! The many sources is why it's important enough to bring into the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that most of the sources listed in that section are fairly minor sources or incorrectly sourced. Ref 20, 82, 83, and 84 are opinion pieces. Ref 36 is a Q&A session, and we have synth with source 81 which does not mention the subject at all as far as I can tell. So what I am saying is most of the sources in the section are not something we should be using in the first place. PackMecEng (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what's "fairly minor" about these sources. It looks like you simply don't like the section. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, lets ignore the minor part, how about the half a dozen source that do not meet the WP:RS? Which are more than half the source listed in that section. PackMecEng (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet, this talk page subsection unfortunately is more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Sagecandor (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the other way around: this argument, indeed the page itself, is an extreme case of WP:ILIKEIT. Editors who love to hate the US head of state (and why not) are using this page as a vehicle to vent their fury at the election upset and his subsequent policies. It really does nothing to illuminate the dubious term "whataboutism" to list every instance where it's been used, from reports of dry cleaning mishaps to vapid opinion pieces. And to package a handful of mentions of the term into a subsection on the US President is undue. Yes, we get it: you don't like Trump, you don't like the Commies, you don't like the Ruskies. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with policies like NPOV and the others mentioned. It is not a parade ground for the opinions and prejudices of the moment. Maybe we need an RfC.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Haha is not funny but is reflective of poster himself! What this then make you, "Jack", if this how you feel about disagree people to have commenting? Sagecandor (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor just indulged in whataboutism against Jack Upland. I hereby award him/her the barnstar of Hero of the Soviet Union. — JFG ^talk 01:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Is good lighthearted response to personal attack yes. Sagecandor (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This entire post by Jack Upland is an extreme Assumption of bad faith and a violation of WP:No personal attacks. DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

PackMecEng is wrong. PackMecEng neglects to check the citations. PackMecEng neglects to check the cited sources themselves. I specifically added quotations to cited sources to make this easier. PackMecEng apparently did not check those. Source 81 has a direct quote from the cited source itself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref 36 is the Columbia Journalism Review, an eminently reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref 20, The Slippery Slope of Trump’s Dangerous ‘Whataboutism’ is an entire article about this very topic. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref 82, Trump has given Putin the best gift he could ask for, is a commentary by a very notable expert on Russia-U.S. relations, former U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul. This is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref 83, Donald Trump’s Whataboutism, is an entire article about this very topic. It is not an opinion piece. Sagecandor (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ref 84, In Praise of Hypocrisy, is from The New York Times, a reliable source. It is by Masha Gessen, a notable individual. It is a notable commentary by a notable individual published by a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Lets take these one at a time.

Ref 20, is part of their "Shadow Government" branch which describes itself as "a blog about U.S. foreign policy", so a blog.

Ref 82, is part of their "Global Opinions" section which is again a opinions section.

Ref 83, is part of their "The Debate" section which describes itself as "our home for the best opinions from around Asia", another opinions section.

Ref 84, is straight up their opinions section.

Ref 36, is a Q&A interview, which is again just the guests opinions.

Ref 81, makes no mention of whataboutism so not sure what it doing here.

So that sums up why I brought up those refs inparticular in that section. I have not gone though the rest of the article yet. PackMecEng (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

User merely restates their own earlier points, from above, without addressing those I've raised about each of the sources complained about. Sagecandor (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded on why they do not have weight to be in here and are not RS. Since they are not attributed to the authors of those opinions but in wikipedias voice. So if I missed a point you made, my mistake, would you point it out? PackMecEng (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I have expanded on why they are indeed reliable sources, for example U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

And you are okay with unattributed opinions pieces said in wikipeidas voice about a BLP? Can you point me to the police that says that is even slightly okay? PackMecEng (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about what I am or am not okay with. What I am okay with, is using U.S. Ambassador Michael McFaul as a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It was not an assumption but a question. Since it is clearly on the wrong side of policy. PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Please don't make such assumptions in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Again it was not an assumption. It is a serious question on why you think that unattributed opinion peices said in wikipeidas voice about a BLP is not against policy. PackMecEng (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

NOT what I said. NOT what I mean. Please stop. Sagecandor (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, Sagecandor, you have been making personal attacks against other people and assuming their bad faith.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland provides zero specifics to back up their false claims. Sagecandor (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but you just did.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Asking for specifics is civil talk page behavior. Asserting, with no evidence, that improvements to a page are due to one particular POV or another, is not. (DIFF). Sagecandor (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

So this seems to be at an impasse, two for inclusion and two against inclusion. Perhaps its time for a RFC or input from other editors. PackMecEng (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your position is unclear. Merge the entire page away to something else and then delete the material? Delete the entire article page from existence? Remove the entire subsection about Trump and pretend zero sources cover Trump's usage of the tactic? Sagecandor (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point I am purposing removing the Trump section as undue along with the ref issues I mentioned above. PackMecEng (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? Remove the entire Trump subsection? The whole thing? Sagecandor (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with PackMecEng: let's nuke this section per WP:TNT. A couple of sentences about commenters calling out Trump on whataboutism may be due (for example Kasparov's remarks), but surely the pile-on is unwarranted. Everybody has been using this technique from schoolchildren to politicians to journalists. Worldwide. For millennia. — JFG ^talk 16:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

In this subsection user admits tactic has been in use for a long time. In another subsection, user takes opposite approach, saying tactic was coined in 2008, which is false. User taking opposite tactics in different sections for cross purposes is confusing. Sagecandor (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

It's simple. The "tu quoque" argument has been around forever; the term "whataboutism" didn't enter currency till 2008. I agree that TNT is required.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT would definitely be solved with this new WP:TNT solution, that's for sure. But burying one's head in the sand doesn't escape the fact that Trump usage of Whataboutism has indeed been covered in many different secondary sources over time. Sagecandor (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"user takes opposite approach": no, user doesn't confuse a word and its meaning, see Word and Object by Quine. The word was coined in 2008, the action it describes has been around since men can talk, and perhaps earlier… — JFG ^talk 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC) (my new name is "user", yay!)

I thought he was talking to me!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, word was not coined in 2008, that is conjecture based on violations of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

And asserting that the word was not coined in 2008 is conjecture based on faith in what an Economist editor wrote that day. Look, linguists can find the first quote of any word by querying vast troves of historical texts. If there was any trace of "whataboutism" as a word before 2008, it would be easy to show it. Absent any instance of this word anywhere in printed and archived literature, the issue is settled and we must admit that a journalist coined it in print in 2008, even if we believe (and he believes) that he heard it decades earlier. — JFG ^talk 20:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

NOT "faith". We don't go by "faith" on Wikipedia. We go by reliable sources. The Economist is a reliable source. Wikipedia editor opinion about their own research is not. Sagecandor (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your cite of it does not mention the title of this article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL … QED. — JFG ^talk 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the only QED demonstrated is a violation of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to spell it out once more: The Oxford English Dictionary demonstrates that "whataboutism" was not a known-enough word in 1989 to appear in a dictionary, and searches in published texts over a century demonstrate that the word "whataboutism" did not find its way to print or electrons before Mr. Lucas' blog post in 2007. Those are simple facts, not OR issues. — JFG ^talk 20:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't understand basic Wikipedia site policy. We can NOT cite a source that has an absence of something, in a Wikipedia article, as evidence of something. That is a violation of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• The section is well sourced and I think historically important. If we look at WP:10YT, I think of this in terms of what will be important in 10 years, I think the weight is due.Casprings (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing special about Trumps use of it compared to anyone else. It is a completely undue section along with the source issues discussed above. I agree with JFG, Jack Upland, and NoMoreHeroes that the section should be removed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Casprings. We should go by weight in secondary sources. Secondary sources profusely discuss the issue. Sagecandor (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken opinion pieces are primary sources, not secondary. So a lot of the sources listed in that section are primary sources. If we then go by the secondary sources left there are not many. PackMecEng (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are mistaken, as I've copyedited and removed most of those that you were going on and complaining about over and over again. Sagecandor (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: Thanks for your WP:CRYSTALINE opinion. Nobody knows what will be important in 10 years, and if we're stooping down into a contest of Wikipedians' opinions, mine is that nobody will care by what exact term some journalists used to call Trump's rhetoric games. — JFG ^talk 16:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a strawman. If you think "whataboutism" is not a notable term, then you'd have to convince the community at AfD. Otherwise, the individual RS consider its foremost 21st Century practitioner needs to be in the article at some lenght. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So Trump is more known for the term now than Putin? PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, among secondary sources, just about, yes. Sagecandor (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Looks like you're strawmanning me now: I never said that "whataboutism" is not a notable term, I just said that The Donald's use of this technique is not new, not unique, and not remarkable except for the current obsession of some journalists with all things +/- related to Russia (Soviet times, oh my! I hope the Russians love their children too.) And yes, I just indulged in a splendid bout of whataboutism! Where's my cookie Hero of the Soviet Union barnstar? — JFG ^talk 16:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedians actually go by what journalists cover in order to determine due weight, so if journalists are covering Trump and Whataboutism as a notable topic, we cover it here on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: I'm not against a couple sentences mentioning that Trump is keen to use whataboutism. A whole section is overkill, especially if we name no other examples than Trump and Putin. — JFG ^talk 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As noted by Casprings and SPECIFICO, and admitted by yourself, above, there is a "current obsession of some journalists" with Trump and Whataboutism. We do not control that. But we do take due weight from it from secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The trapdoor clang of self-contradiction echoes across the internet. SPECIFICO talk 17:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:Yes, hilarious ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not think JFG is saying that no sources or weight exsist, both do. Just not enough to justify its own section, especially when we are singling out one BLP for it. I would be okay with their suggestion of mentioning the small coverage they got elsewhere in the article and removing the Trump section. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It is undue weight. There is an ocean of commentary about the Commander in Chief, and it's easy to scoop up some of it to use on this page. But we don't need a whole paragraph. In addition, the juxtaposition of the unjustified Soviet Union sidebar with this overblown Trump section is misleading, undue, and amounts to extreme POV-pushing (whether intended or not).--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"There is an ocean of commentary about the Commander in Chief", agreed, and per SPECIFICO, this then makes it not undue weight. Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fair comment to discuss Donald Trump's usage of the term and there are sources to support it. However, putting Putin and Trump's photos side by side, given what is happening in American political discourse inadvertently panders to the Russian Collusion narrative. There is no need to have photos of Trump or Putin here, most people know who they are since they are each famous. Juxtaposing them side by side creates an impression that they are in collaboration with each other, which is a popular opinion but hardly WP:NPOV DeadEyeSmile (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done, per suggestion by DeadEyeSmile, removed side-by-side image presentation of Putin and Trump. Sagecandor (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Any pre-2008 references?

Resurgence of whataboutism was potentially amplified by post-2012 citogenesis.

I find the argument above absurd. If the term was in common use before 2008, there should be at least one reference from before 2008. If there are none to be found, it's not a violation of WP:OR to say "the term was not in common use in print before 2008". Power~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." - there are over 100 references here, and I believe all of them are from after 2008. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, many journalistic or opinion pieces written after 2012 are prone to having been influenced by this very article, which looked like this: [7] Note the intro sentence categorically stating that Whataboutism is a propaganda tactic originally used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. Citations were The Economist 2008, the Guardian 2012 and Sputnik News 2012, which in turn cites a blog post by Neil Buckley of the Financial Times.[8] Methinks we have a possible case of amplified citogenesis… — JFG ^talk 02:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Very definition of violation of WP:No original research. Sagecandor (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

To be more clear, in order to say, "the term was not in common use in print before 2008", we would need a WP:SECONDARY source that makes that assertion, not simply Wikipedia editors making that claim with no cites. Sagecandor (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear, in order to not say, "the term was in common use in print before 2008", we would not need a WP:SECONDARY source that makes that assertion. It is not WP:OR to identify sources as unreliable for certain content in a particular context; and to therefore exclude that content; even where the publisher or publication would normally be regarded as generally reliable. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case of neologism and citogenesis. As previously stated, the Oxford English Dictionary in 1989 does not record "whataboutism". To be clear, this is the full 20 volume second edition, which is the last printed version of the OED and purports to be a full record of every English word at the time. (In fact, "whataboutism" is not listed in the online OED either.) I do not think that a dictionary is a primary source. I don't think it is original research to simply state this fact. There is no interpretation involved; there is no synthesis of sources. --Jack Upland (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine, everybody seems to agree on the facts of the matter except Sagecandor. Here's my proposal for a neutral and factually correct lede paragraph:

"Whataboutism" is a rhetoric technique to deflect criticism by pointing out similar faults in the adversary's behaviour. For example, [TODO cite a good example here]. Whataboutism is a variant of the classical tu quoque fallacy or the "pot and the kettle" metaphor. The word first appeared in print in a 2007 blog post by British journalist Edward Lucas, who proceeded to introduce the concept to a wider audience in a 2008 article for The Economist and in his book The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West. Since 2012, the term has been increasingly used in British and American media to accuse Russia of hypocrisy over internationally tense matters, such as the 2014 Ukrainian crisis.

Add appropriate citations, then pick the bits from the article that actually discuss whataboutism, and cut down the Soviet era fantasies: point to "And you are lynching negroes" for what Soviet propaganda really said at the time. Comments and further suggestions welcome. — JFG ^talk 21:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Question: Is there a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that backs up these unsourced assertions and false claims ? Sagecandor (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you comment on the proposed article text instead of repeating accusations of false claims and pointers to policy basics? We're all trying to improve the article here; please collaborate constructively. — JFG ^talk 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

False claims now debunked as bullshit per DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary dates origin of term to well before 2008

The Oxford English Dictionary entry on whataboutism traces the origins of the word back to the 1990s.

This is well before 2008.

Citation:

• "whataboutism", Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2017, archived from the original on 9 March 2017, retrieved 21 July 2017, Origin - 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about —?'.

Therefore, the false claims on the talk page about the term being a "neologism" that began in 2007 or 2008, are all wrong. Sagecandor (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is clear, although for the purposes of the article, that citation might be considered a primary source. I can't see why any NPOV editor would challenge it, however. SPECIFICO talk 02:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good source. The OED serves as a reference in many Wikipedia articles: hundreds, even. I have a CDROM (remember those?) version of the OED around here somewhere. If I introduce the old thing to my current computer I might find more than just "1990s", for instance who printed "whataboutism" first. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet:Thanks for your input. Sagecandor (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Good find, Sagecandor, thanks. However this online OED entry was only added in March 2017, according to the Wayback Machine.[9] That looks odd. They provide no reference to their claim that the word originated in the 1990s. No reference to the Soviet Union either, obviously, that entity having been in the past even in the 1990s. Now, Binksternet, can you check that CD for proof, and perhaps hints of actual first use? — JFG ^talk 05:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:You're welcome. I agree it is a good find. And debunks the falsehoods pushed forth repeatedly on this talk page that the term originated in 2008. Which we now know is false and bullshit, per this source. Sagecandor (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)