Talk:Whataboutism#RfC: Introduction to the subject

The China section really needs more information, especially with their annual reports about US human rights and other notable incidents beyond the 2019 tweets. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's ironic that the China section includes a link to "US Human Rights abuses", which itself implements the PRC's "whataboutism" described in that section.

A reader can easily click the "Propaganda in PRC" wikilink to get more relevant detail on how they engage in this, w/o going into an unrelated rabbit hole on US abuses. Like yeah, everyone knows the US does dirt, we don't need to act as catspaws for PRC on Wikipedia

edit: I read the linked article, it started as a neutral source and has since been edited to align with PRC info-ops, with a single bit of criticism of its naked bias buried at the bottom.

I would remove that wikilink but the article is locked

73.202.95.43 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Since there's a whole section on Trump, What About Hunter Biden? (get it?)

9 hours worth of Whataboutism on public display:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDahoZdx3KU 83.94.240.45 (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

:Hunter Biden isn't as notable of a political figure as Donald Trump and the article should not be including every possible instance of whataboutism. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

::Hunter is notable figure as they seem to have a prominent Wikipedia entry however it appears that there is a bias towards one ideology over another as should it be included.

::In my personal opinion the Trump section should be removed unless there are references to both sides of politics in order to remain politically neutral. Throttler (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I didn't say Hunter Biden lacked notability for a Wikipedia page, I said he was not as notable a political figure as Donald Trump. He didn't hold the highest office in the US political system did he?

:::There is no reason we would need "references to both sides of politics" for neutrality in this article. What you are asking for is some form of false balance.

:::If the Democratic Party deployed some logical fallacy heavily and was famous for doing so I wouldn't require that Wikipedia article to have some similar example of the Republican Party deploying the same fallacy if the example lacked notability or relevance just for some false sense of neutrality. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

::::+1. Again: this is not an article about US politics. “Balancing” (falsely so) two “sides” of a local political opposition is just irrelevant (funnily enough, it is itself comparable to a form of whataboutism). The point should be to illustrate the logical/rhetorical concept of whataboutism with a few notable (noted) occurrences, not to keep a repertoire of every occurrence in every country in the world so that every hater is satisfied. Maëlan 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Democrats documented whataboutism on the border should be added to this article. Some sources that mention this include:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-was-the-liberal-outrage-when-democratic-presidents-sent-troops-to-the-border/2018/11/06/9323d89e-e1e7-11e8-8f5f-a55347f48762_story.html

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/columnists/michael-smolens/sd-me-smolens-daca-20180111-story.html

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/07/19/dems-now-masters-of-whataboutism/ Loltardo (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

:In those 3 articles I only see Trump using whataboutism defenses? It's not really clear where the Democrats are making a "what about" defense from those articles. Anyway just because there's a section on Trump as an example of Whataboutism doesn't mean there needs to be an equivalent section for Democrats especially if the usage is less clear and or notable. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

::Agreed. This article is about a generic notion, not US politics. Please don’t make this article even more US-centric. Maëlan 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

:::The section in question is titled "Use in political contexts," with subsections for Russia, China, and...Donald Trump. It would be much fairer and more in line with the rest of the article to remove the "Donald Trump" headline and replace it with "United States" and then detail examples in U.S. politics including Donald Trump and the Democrat Party. We could even add in the GOP in general for good measure. Loltardo (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

:::: A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party, not the "Democrat" party, a common error deliberately used to treat the party disrespectfully. Treating one's opponent carelessly and disrespectfully is a common type of tactic used by everyone in politics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

::::If you would take some time to read the content of those sections perhaps you would realize why the titles are appropriate. In the China and Russia ones the state itself is deploying the fallacy, the Donald Trump section is just about Trump using the fallacy, not the US as a state. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|Whataboutism|answered=yes}}

I recommend adding in the "Concerns about effects" subsection of this page the following sentences as the final section of this section adding another concern about whataboutism and recent academic research on whataboutism's effects:

Similarly policymakers have frequently expressed concerns that whataboutism in the international arena could targeting their country could reduce their ability to carry our their desired foreign policies in many cases. For example, Jake Sullivan, US national security advisor in the Biden administration, described whataboutism as a “dangerous” strategy that could potentially “stunt America’s global leadership [1]. Indeed recent academic research has found whataboutism to be an effective method in the international arena for countries trying defend themselves from international criticism of their foreign policies or human rights violations at home reducing support for criticism of their actions in the critics public" [2]

And cite the following article as the source of these sentences:

[1] Jake Sullivan "The Slippery Slope of Trump’s Dangerous Whataboutism” Foreign Policy, 7 February 2017 https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/07/the-slippery-slope-of-trumps-dangerous-whataboutism-russia-putin-american-exceptionalism/

[2]Wilfred M. Chow and Dov H. Levin 2024. “The Diplomacy of Whataboutism and US Foreign Policy Attitudes” International Organization 78(1): 103-133

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/diplomacy-of-whataboutism-and-us-foreign-policy-attitudes/9A6AAD756ED297D4EBB9E8E8B1B92ABE#article Ronchin444 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 15:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The structural context of whataboutism is completely missing in the article.

The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the template (i.e. pattern):[2]

Person A claims that statement X is true.

Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

Therefore, X is false.

The article disregards that statement X has to be built on a set of values and it's own justification.

If that criteria is not met then any and everything is whataboutism. Feminism is whataboutism cause you cant "what about men". BLM is whataboutism cause you cant

"what about white people". Racism as a whole is whataboutism because you cant point at any other race and ask "what about them".

Within this context, if Person A proposes a set of values (i.e. X is bad) but they themselves actively engage in X as well, then you have a situation in which

Person A can only make this argument when they proclaim themselves to be also bad.

If this criteria is not met and Person A attempts to levy X against person B then at best you have a double standard at your hands, at worst a completely nonsensical deflection.

As the article states under DEFLECTION, whataboutism is often used to try and deflect away the values set by X.

If you are honest about your statement then by definition you agree with the set of values you have proposed, i.e.:

- Invading sovereign countries is bad.

- Distinguishing between people based on immutable characteristics is bad.

If you invade sovereign countries yourselves, if you distinguish people based on immutable characteristics yourselves, then what value set are you appealing to when you bring these up as something bad?

This is not an adhominem attack. If you want to set up a set of values under claim X then those need to be consistent.

If they arent, then you are simply pulling things up from thin air.

2A02:AB88:D8C:7380:C18B:BB82:1916:208 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is based on published analysis which we summarize for the reader. It is not based on analysis from contributors such as yourself. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::MSNBC is a reliable source for wikipedia. Meanwhile they are only a source based on opinion. Maybe read a history book some time. What is stated is true. Commiting war crimes, and then crying when the opposing side does the same thing, but silencing the other side when they bring up the war crimes you commited, is deflection when theyre using the word whataboutism. Im seriously worried for the west right now. 2001:56A:734C:DF00:E44D:A684:F113:E73A (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:Find a wp:Reliable source to support the statement "The article disregards that statement X has to be built on a set of values and it's own justification." And then add that statement and its source to the article. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)