Talk:Whataboutism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Who invented the term

A footnoted unnamed staff writer in The Economist wrote in 2008: their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”.

So far there was no evidence provided that the term was known among political comentatotrs. The only memoir is from Lucas from Economist, who mention student's debates. Therefore I suggest remove this claim as dubious until additional confirmation found. Given that google digitized huge amounts of western press, I find it suspicious that we don't have google hits from these olden days. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:16, 31 October 2015 (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)

Validity

Again, I see some Wikipedia editors are trying to push this term into the mainstream. It's not a logical fallacy. It's not generally accepted among political commentators nor debaters nor linguists. It's a propaganda term from 2008 inspired by events from the Cold War that has regained popularity thanks to the renewed Colder War we are in. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NEOLOGISM before adding to this article. For one, we should not promote the misconception that the term has been accepted for much longer and should not try to synthesize sources by labeling events wherein the Soviet Union accused the West of hypocrisy as "whataboutism". It's extremely POV and frankly not at all encyclopedic. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This your post is just as meaningful and revealing as your signature. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I wasn't accusing you, I support much of what you have said. I'm simply frustrated that it now once again says "The term was coined during the Cold War" without any proof whatsoever. Searching on google from 1940 to 2007 minus wiki articles reveals only typos and later-added comments. It's a neologism. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it was deep night, my mind was fuzzy, I could not parse your text. Usually if a message do not contain specific suggestions about changes in the article, based on analysis of available sources, my usual reaction is "tl;dr". Therefore I tried to joke that your suggestions about article improvement is just as hidden as your user name: one has to read "beyond the lines", not just "between the lines". - üser:Altenmann >t 03:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is a neologism. It reminds me of the creation of the folk song, "Good Old Shoe", in the film Wag the Dog. In any case, it is entirely valid for USSR or Russia or anyone else to point out Western double standards. Westerners themselves point that out.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the 14 March 2016 "Revert back to before POV editing made the article all about Lucas" has effectively removed all improvements made to the original article that was created by the same editor. Lucas provides the first known usage of the the term in 2007, claiming to recall it in student debates at the LSE, in 2008 he claimed it was a propaganda tactic of the Soviet Union. Thus any evidence that 'whataboutism' is a neologism has been removed, without any discussion in Talk. I suggest that revert be undone. Harry W1234 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. I even agree with the editor that yes, it IS too much about Lucas now, but that is because he seems to have single handedly coined the word. I would love more references specifically mentioning the term (even better: evidence of the term being common during the Cold War), but denying these issues does not make for a better article. WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR need to be avoided. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Coining a term for the technique doesn't mean the technique itself wasn't used before that point. The propaganda technique didn't have a name until Lucas gave it one, but it is now a commonly used name for that technique. The technique itself still existed regardless. Silverseren^C 04:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

As for references specifically discussing the term, there are plenty. Here are several from the first page of a Google search.

• Russian whataboutism vs. American moralism - Russia Direct
• We need ‘whataboutism’ now more than ever - Al Jazeera
• Kremlin TV Loves Anti-War Protests—Unless Russia Is the One Waging War - New Republic
• Ferguson, whataboutism and American soft power - Washington Post
• Press Freedom and the New Whataboutism - Commentary Magazine

Is that good enough? Silverseren^C 04:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

All those articles refer back to Lucas.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It is as Jack says, and that was exactly my problem with it. The term didn't exist before Lucas coined it, and every other article came out later and either referred to Lucas or the Economist or gave no source whatsoever. I'm not saying the practice could not have existed during the Cold War - I'm saying the terminology did not yet exist during it. And that's what this article is about. The older versions contained matters that supposedly were akin to whataboutism, but had never been linked to it by a reliable source and were virtually just regarded as such in the opinion of some editors. That's original research, and it's not what Wikipedia is about. If anything, it's Cold War II terminology (but again: let's not speculate too much ourselves). Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you call it "commonly used", and I would dispute that. The term has gained popularity but is still only reported in media and non-scientific works. I have never seen this in prominent debates or extensive Cold War analyses. Tu quoque is an official formal fallacy associated with the practice. As for Cold War terminology, And you are lynching Negroes is a fine example that was used a lot. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Given that this is a classic case of WP:NEOLOGISM but also that it has recently survived an AfD, where do we go from here?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The name of it is new, I already acknowledged that. But all the sources discuss how the practice of the technique is not new. You can disagree, fine, but your disagreement is also irrelevant. You are not a reliable source, they are. And the sources say that the technique is real and it now has a name. The only statement in the previous version of the article that wasn't directly linked was the Chernobyl one, so I am fine with removing that. But the techniques usage in 1947 was directly referenced by a modern source, using the term. So the source stated that it was an example of the technique.

Removing that statement and the source, which is what the current article shows, is clear POV editing because you dislike that the sources don't agree with your opinion on the topic. Because that's what i'm seeing here. You don't think it's a real fallacy or technique, but your opinion is completely irrelevant to the editing of this topic. The sources say it is real. They trump both of you. Silverseren^C 06:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There, i've used the previous wording, but noted that Lucas coined the term. And i've left the Neologism tag for now, but I don't see how the article is currently lacking sources discussing the term, the technique, and its usage in the world. If you need more sources to add, i've already made the list above to use. Silverseren^C 06:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, no, it's not. See the discussion and reactions above. Lucas invented the term and it can in no way be linked to the Soviet Union because the term didn't exist then. Sorry, but I'm reverting it again. You did not achieve any form of consensus. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this term was initially suggested by Lucas, however now this is not a term "according to one man" as that version tells [1]. This version is also highly POV (mention "Cold war" in every paragraph etc). The term can not be applied to the Soviet Union because "the term didn't exist then"? Oh no, this is simply a new term which is applied to the Soviet Union retrospectively. This is common practice with any terminology. My very best wishes (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not get any form of consensus before going against the current one. It wasn't just suggested by Lucas, it was coined exclusively by him. Virturally any other source that has used it has referred to his article or was inspired by it. That makes it his term, and identifies it with him. It was never used during the Cold War so it was not Cold War terminology. And you are lynching Negroes was used during the Cold War, conversely. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mate, it's you who needs to get a consensus. You've tried this four times over the years, getting reverted each time (in some cases it took awhile for the revert to take place). Stickee (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The consensus above seemed to be that 'whataboutism' is a neologism coined by Lucas. The reverts to all but remove Lucas and thus evidence that it is a neologism seemed against consensus. In 2008, Lucas put a twist on a preexisting term, 'whataboutery', which was in common usage before Lucas dates (but doesn't document) usage of the term 'whataboutism'. 'Whataboutery' has a documented etymology, definition and usage in Irish politics, while 'whataboutism' was first used in 2008 with an undocumented history and the practice specifically attributed to USSR & Russia. 'Whataboutism' appears to be a derivative of the earlier term, even appropriating its definition. I take the point made above that the article shouldn't focus exclusively on Lucas, I emphasised him to make it clear it is a neologism. However, given it is a neologism, the title of the page probably should change from the 2008 neologism to the original and documented term 'Whataboutery', with the original term given priority. Harry W1234 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it is a neologism, and I don't see the relevance of an unrelated arbitration case from 2007.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Jack, the tag at the top of this page is a notice that discretionary sanctions apply to this article and its talk page. This means uninvolved administrators may perform a wide variety of actions without having to go through cumbersome community sanctions at ANI. This page comes under the jurisdiction of WP:ARBEE sanctions regardless of whether the tag is placed, I just placed it there as a courtesy. Stickee (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting two edits by '91.158.76.250' (6 August 2016). Those appear to have copied and summarised my opinion (above), but that's not appropriate for the page itself. The problems with this article seem to arise from it being a neologism that's been approved rather than deleted: Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms Whataboutism has no documented etymology, definition or usage prior to 2008 by Lucas, followed by others who adopted his use of the term and its undocumented Cold War history. It largely repeats these highly opinionated sources as if they were authoritative secondary ones. Whataboutery does have etymology, definition & usage prior to 2008 documented in both primary and secondary sources. However that term redirects to Whataboutism. Perhaps Whataboutery should have its own article to document that. This article seems flawed by trying to dignify the assertions and undocumented history of Lucas and related sources that adopted his term. Harry W1234 (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't make that much sense. This article is about the technique used in the Cold War, which is notable. The given term for that technique is the current article title, as per many reliable sources. Stickee (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is about a word coined in 2008 by Lucas, first said to be a student debating tactic at the LSE in the early 1980s, then ascribed to Soviet propaganda training without any evidence from that source. There's no source indicating 'whataboutism' was actually a Soviet technique in the Cold War, recognised either by Soviets or analysts of Soviet propaganda. The sources all appear to be primary, adopting the term and embellishing its undocumented history. There's just a term from 2008, with an undocumented history attached to it and popularised by those same primary sources. Harry W1234 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union knows about a phenomenon called whataboutism. It was the Soviet tactic of responding to..." New Republic. "...whataboutism, a Soviet propaganda tactic employed during the Cold War" Al Jazeera. "Whataboutism did not just spontaneously appear in public debate but was a technique designed by the KGB of the USSR during the Cold War." Curaçao Chronicle, column. The sources are unequivocal. You're trying to perform your own etymological analysis, but original research is not accepted here. Stickee (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

These quotes mean nothing; the authors were probably reading wikipedia. However you are right about original researh. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a neologism. A few sources have picked up Lucas's terminology, but authoritative sources about the Soviet Union and the Cold War do not use the term. In fact, most do not even discuss the phenomenon: after all, it's not very surprising that the USSR would respond to the USA's ideological attacks with ideological attacks of its own. "Whataboutism" is not a term of historical analysis: it is propaganda slogan to attack Putin's Russia. Is this "original research"?! Well, how could I provide a source for this??? Citing a series of history books that don't use the term "whataboutism" or discuss the issue??? I'm sure that would be unacceptable under Wikipedia's holy rules. What I need are citations which discuss and dismiss "whataboutism". But, as far as I know, no reliable sources have bothered to discuss it. It is a neologism and not notable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant the talk about "whataboutery" how Lucas misremembered the term, etc. And IMO a good deal of the article as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:34, 10 August 2016 (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)

"There are two methods of properly countering Whataboutism."

"There are two methods of properly countering Whataboutism." This seems a curious sort of statement in an encyclopedic article. Proper? Says who? Sounds like an opinion to me. Even substituting the word 'effective' for 'proper' will not change that this statement is pure speculation unless there is some authority with research to back it up and my gut feeling is no such authority let alone research exists anywhere. If someone wants to include some examples of effective counters that have been used against specific incidents of whataboutism that would be one thing, but it would still be original research based upon anecdote unless backed by some sort of statistical study into such things.CherylJosie (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Concur. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed by rephrasing. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• This section still looks like propaganda to me, adding an "according to" source and failing to source the other point of view is still taking a part, and is not very ecyclopedic. Soparamens (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this as there seems to be consensus over several years that it is unencyclopedic.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Straw man?

Accusations of "whataboutism", especially the facile comparisons to (apocryphal) Soviet "a u vas linchuyut negrov" trope, are frequently strawmen designed to discredit valid counter-arguments via judicious international comparisons. Imagine the following exchange:

AMERICAN: Russia shouldn't support the bloody Syrian dictatorship. RUSSIAN: Erm what about Bahrain?

This is a valid example of "whataboutism"

AMERICAN: Russia is an evil empire that supports the bloody Syrian dictatorship. We should put sanctions on them. RUSSIAN: Erm what about Bahrain?

This is NOT, because in this case, the American clearly has a political agenda against Russia that is cloaked in double standards, so it is quite fair to bring to attention analogous cases of Western support for regime crackdowns in this case.

I have several criticisms of the whataboutism argument on my "Da Russophile" project. Perhaps there are criticisms elsewhere. I do not wish to make the rebuttals myself here, as I would be citing my own material which is looked down upon at Wikipedia, but someone really should make this piece more balanced by adding a "Criticisms" section.

SublimeWik (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense! The validity of an argument does not depend on who promotes it, just as we do not need to know the character of the person that first promoted the idea that 2 + 2 = 4 to take a stand on it. But although the retort that you believe is valid it is quite an alluring form of propaganda. It's a derailment. That kind of retort switches the dialog from the debate of the issue at hand and into quite a another dialog, or rather eristics, about the character of your opponent. A dialog of your proposition of his hypocrisy). But if something is bad or false, it is bad or false. The badness or falseness does not depend on your (ideological) belief that The Others are "as bad", or "worse", or as wrong as you. It does nothing to do you immune from criticism in any way. It does not in any way make you right or your false proposition true. In my youth the sixty-eighters, the radicals of the 60s, made this "point", every time they where questioned about their support for totalitarian regimes like Soviet Union or Maos China. I remember when Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn The Gulag Archipelago about the murderous horrors of the Soviet Union. Besides labeling him a traitor to the working class of the Soviet Union, their retort was that USA, Capitalism, Right wing regimes and on and on... was "just as bad", if not "worse"... That is, in this way they where able to defend the arguably most murderous and oppressive regimes in human history against any criticism. In their almost perfectly decadent (ad hominem tu quoque) mindset, any criticism of such regimes could be brushed aside as "hypocrisy". But even if it was as true as it in reality was false that the democratic world was "as bad" or "worse", it is utterly irrelevant. And first it derails the debate at hand, and secondly it tries to get their opponent on the defensive about something quite different, and about their character, by switching the dialog form from a debate of the issue at hand, and into an argument about the inner mental life of their opponent. --2001:4646:95AA:0:CCD:CCC6:BCAE:FC19 (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Political debates don't follow strict logic. People often counter each other with "what about..?". To be strictly logical and truthful, you should say, "That is false, and what about...?" or "That's is true, but what about...?". The proverbs about the pot and the kettle and the mote and beam are not a logical fallacious. The issue, sometimes, is whether the pot is as black as the kettle, and who has the mote and who has the beam. These are factual issues, not logical ones. The problem with this article is that it implies that the "Russians" (and perhaps some similar "bad hombres") are the only people who do this. That is utterly false and biased.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:08, 24 April 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)

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)

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)

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: [2]. 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 [3]. 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)

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)

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" [7].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disputed tag should be removed

This disputed tag added by JFG [8] should be removed, per comments by BullRangifer [9] [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, with an edit summary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me, as the section doesn't say "First use in the Soviet Union" any longer (that was false). — JFG ^talk 07:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannot cite a source as evidence for absence of something

Cannot cite a source as evidence for absence of something, as was done in recent edits by JFG. [11]

Further, cannot say that "first documented use was..." without citing a secondary source to prove that. [12]

It was NOT the "first documented use".

That is false.

Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The source, itself, says it was NOT the "first documented use". Cannot then turn around and cite that source as if it is the "first documented use". That makes zero sense:

• 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'. Sagecandor (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• The most we can do is cite The Wall Street Journal, which is a WP:SECONDARY source, which says Edward Lucas "popularized" the term [13]. We can NOT cite a source itself to say it is the "first documented use", when that very same source The Economist says the opposite inside the source, with "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'." [14] Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: You wrote that Lucas was "not the first documented use". Could you please point us to an earlier documented use of the word? Not a recent source claiming that the word had been used earlier, but an actual source dated from before 2007 that includes the word. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Austin, Joe (1994). "The Obdurate and the Obstinate". In Parker, Tony (ed.). May the Lord in His Mercy be Kind to Belfast. Henry Holt and Company. p. 136. ISBN 978-0805030532. And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' - you know, people who said 'Yes, but what about what's been done to us? ... That had nothing to do with it, and if you got into it you were defending the indefensible. Sagecandor (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you! I note that this citation has nothing to do with the Soviet Union or with propaganda, and that "what aboutism" is not spelled as a single word. Do you happen to have another instance which better fits the Soviet-era narrative? — JFG ^talk 06:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to rely on reliable secondary sources for that. Reliable secondary sources explicitly state the term became prominent during the Soviet Union as part of Soviet propaganda. Sagecandor (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do not deflect the question. If whataboutism was widely used in the Cold War era, or even after 1991 but before 2007, you should easily be able to find dozens of actual uses of the term dating from those days. — JFG ^talk 06:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We already have reliable secondary sources that back this up. Sagecandor (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We have indeed several sources which claim that the word was in use earlier; but you have shown no source that actually backs up this claim. — JFG ^talk 06:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If I were to do that, it would be original research on my part. I'd rather rely on secondary sources for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's a pity, because it would be so simple to prove your point and prove the claims of the sources you cite. I wonder why you won't shower me with dozens of press clippings from 1956 to 2006 showing how widespread the word "whataboutism" was at the time. Or maybe, just maybe that's because the word was actually first mentioned in print in 2007 by Mr. Edward Lucas. Even if he is too modest to admit having coined it, he certainly was the first to publish it. — JFG ^talk 06:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also wonder why you happily "indulged in WP:OR" when citing the 1994 opus "The Obdurate and the Obstinate" above, and why you now claim that exhibiting another example of actual use of the word prior to 2007 would be inappropriate for you to do. — JFG ^talk 06:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would not cite that source for Etymology in the main article body text itself, that would indeed be original research. Sagecandor (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia constructs articles based on secondary sources. Reliance on primary sources to make claims by individual Wikipedia users is against site policy. It would be great for another site, perhaps. Maybe a sister site on a Wikia site. Sagecandor (talk) 06:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This conversation has reached peak non-productivity. You can't find an example of use prior to 2007 and you won't admit that the word wasn't used prior to 2007. I can not help you further. — JFG ^talk 06:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't rely on primary sources on Wikipedia. Reliable secondary sources do back this up. Sagecandor (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

In other words, even though we know that every recent source claiming "Whataboutism" was a common term during the Cold War is completely wrong, Wikipedia has no choice but to follow those so-called RS and ignore primary sources from the time, resulting in an article that is wildly inaccurate. To the contrary, I would argue that we should exercise editorial discretion and ignore manifestly unreliable sources. WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, and such discretion is not uncommon; it only requires a modicum of common sense.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I also note that Robert Tracinski and The Federalist are not WP:RS by any stretch of the imagination. Did you know that Tracinski called for nuking Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Sudan after 9/11, even though none of the hijackers came from any of those countries? I'd be lying if I said I didn't find that rather terrifying ... Surely the other side in this dispute can find better sources than that?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, you can't cite a source and add your own comment that they don't say something. That's classic OR. It's also OR to demand we find use of the word at previous times. All we have to do is to cite sources which say the word was used in previous times. That's all that's necessary. We are not required to prove a negative. Your OR and editorializing was properly removed. It's time to drop the stick. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No: Sagecandor and myself have a fundamental disagreement about whether the use of "whataboutism" pre-2007 should be documented by contemporary sources or assumed from later claims. Our conversations have made the case clear enough for all to see. It's time to hear from other editors and ultimately reach consensus to improve the article for the benefit of readers. — JFG ^talk 07:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

As editors, you have no right to make your own rules, like whether it "should be documented by contemporary sources or assumed from later claims." You are obligated to follow whatever reliable secondary sources say, whether they are contemporary or later. We have to use what is available, not make demands that are essentially demands to prove a negative. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're being asked to prove a positive, not a negative. All you need is one example of this term being used during the Cold War to win the debate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, your edit summary states: "Actually, exhibiting a contemporary source to demonstrate usage of a word is not OR, at least not in a talk page where we try to establish facts)." While that would be "nice", it's not a policy-based demand. It is not necessary to provide such contemporary evidence. Several RS have stated that the term was used previously. Those sources meet the policy-based requirements and no further "nice" demands must be met. Those RS are sufficient to rest the case. Further demands to satisfy personal curiosity are disruptive.

This disruption needs to stop. Be satisfied with the RS. The article has been challenged repeatedly, and once again survived. Seek to improve it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: You've got it backwards: you are demanding that other editors prove a negative, i.e. that this word was not used in print before 2007. That is an impossible demand, as you refuse a matter-of-fact, perfectly verifiable citation from the largest reference dictionary of the English language which does not include the word. On the other hand, as TheTimesAreAChanging stated, you could close the debate by proving the word was indeed used in the supposedly abundant written record before Lucas. But confronted with the bare facts of the matter, you and Sagecandor have been deflecting, wikilawyering and edit-warring: THAT is disruptive. — JFG ^talk 07:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits about blog post by Lucas violate original research

Edits about blog post Lucas added by JFG here [15] violate WP:No original research and should be removed.

They do not belong in the Etymology section, unless sources explicitly comment on the term itself.

Sources can't be used simply to state, so and so "used the word"....

This edit should be undone.

Sagecandor (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. My edit just states facts of where and when Lucas introduced the word, but to address your OR objections, I now refrained from saying that was the first documented use. Why can't a source be used to state somebody used the word? — JFG ^talk 07:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"where and when Lucas introduced the word" = wrong. Lucas did not introduce the word. The source itself disputes this "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'." [16]. We cannot use a source to advance a position disputed by the source itself in that source. Sagecandor (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of English has entry on Whataboutism

Oxford Dictionary of English has entry on Whataboutism:

• Stevenson, Angus, ed. (2010), "whataboutism", Oxford Dictionary of English: Third Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199571123, retrieved July 23, 2017, origin 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about ——?'.

Sagecandor (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

A RS we can use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but this doesn't show that it was used in the Cold War, but indicates the opposite.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Great, so user agrees this dates the origin of the term before 2007. Sagecandor (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Soviet usage

A highly suspect assertion: "There's another attitude toward doping allegations that many Russians seem to share, what used to be called in the Soviet Union "whataboutism"". This is sourced to an opinion piece of no obvious reliability, which is at variance with the RSs cited here. As a personal bit of OR, I'll note that it is also at variance with common sense. The author doesn't just state that the term was uses during the Cold War, but that it was used in the Soviet Union. As a native speaker of Russian who lived in the Soviet Union, I find the suggestion that the English word "whataboutism" was used in the Soviet Union to be completely absurd. Eperoton (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you, trimmed that from the Etymology section. Sagecandor (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What about "Other stuff exists"

What about Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? Is "Whataboutism" only practiced by Russians and Donald Trump? What about the Koreans or the Iranians? What about Americans, for that matter? wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If you've got suggestions for any other secondary sources, that would be most appreciated ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussions

See:

• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ?
• Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Can a Wikipedia user cite what they feel is the first usage of a word to state that is the first documented usage ?

Ping: User:JFG, User:Jack Upland, User:Jytdog, User:TheTimesAreAChanging -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Also note: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#JFG Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit violates WP:SYNTH

This edit by JFG [17] violates WP:SYNTH policy, and should be removed. Sagecandor (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not SYNTHESIS, as my edit only states that the OED never included this word. That is a statement of fact which is WP:Verifiable by anyone with access to the print, CD or online edition. In a section about etymology of a word, the first order of business is to check the dictionary, and OED is the gold standard of English dictionaries. Will restore. — JFG ^talk 08:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely verifiable and straightforward. Numerous libraries around the English-speaking word hold the OED in print form (1989 edition) or as an online subscription. It is easy for editors to verify. There is no synthesis or original research. The OED is a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Is it original research to cite a source as evidence for the absence of something ?, the valid point was brought up that our readers might jump to the wrong conclusion if we tell them the word is not found in OED. The reader might think the word had declined in usage (it has increased in recent years) or the reader might think the word was somehow less important for not being included, whereas the OED may have a completely different reason for not including whataboutism. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should steer away from describing the problem as SYNTH. I see it as using an absence of evidence as evidence of absence. We do have RS which say the term was in use. Whether or not it was included in some dictionary is another matter. Don't conflate the two issues.

This has just been provided below, and it should be enough to end the discussion:

Oxford Dictionary of English has entry on Whataboutism:

• Stevenson, Angus, ed. (2010), "whataboutism", Oxford Dictionary of English: Third Edition, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780199571123, retrieved July 23, 2017, origin 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by 'What about ——?'.

That's a good RS. Whether or not anyone can find actual use of the word itself is not important. The concept was practiced and had it's origins in the "1990s". (We can't be sure that this reference refers to the word, the concept, or both. (I can't read the actual content.)-- BullRangifer (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematic

I am not sure this article should exist, especially in its present form and focus.

• First -- the putative earliest use of the term - the blog posting from 2007, says: "The Old Theatre at the London School of Economics is a hotspot for demagoguery. Fiery student orators have honed their rhetoric there before going on to jobs in investment banking; mobs denouncing dictatorship have hounded hapless visiting speakers from the podium. ...In 1980, when your diarist arrived there as an undergraduate, it was gripped by the issue of Soviet beastliness at home and abroad. ... At one end of the political spectrum were .... At the other end were ... A slightly less bonkers approach by the Kremlin’s useful idiots was to match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one. It was called “whataboutism”:..."

So he is talking about a term that was used in rowdy debates at the LSE in the 1980s.

• Second...

If you look at the online oxford dictionary entry for whataboutism, it says: "Origin: 1990s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by ‘What about —?’."

That entry also says: "Also called whataboutery", and the entry for whataboutery says: "Origin: 1970s: from the way in which counter-accusations may take the form of questions introduced by ‘What about —?’.

Both of those entries say that the term is British. (not American.. British)

I went into my library's database and searched for both "whataboutism" and "whataboutery" and the the first use of whataboutism there is the blog posting. The earliest usages of "whataboutery", however, are

• • Backbencher (2 February 1974). "Enter the Cultural British Army". The Irish Times. p. 12. As a correspondent noted In a recent letter to this paper, we are very big on Whatabout Morality, matching one historic injustice with another justified injustice. We have a bellyfull of What-aboutery in these killing days and the one clear fact to emerge is that people, Orange and Green, are dying as a result of it.
  • Cooney, John (16 December 1974). "Church leaders' campaign for peace: Cardinal Conway: Look first at one's self". The Irish Times. p. 8. Speaking on the Campaign of Prayer for Peace in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Armagh, Cardinal Conway summed up one aim of the campaign with the slogan "What·aboutery." In a situation of tension, when faced with something embarrassing or shameful, people are inclined to point the finger at some other incident and say, 'Yes, but what about such and such'." he said.
  • Patterson, Robin (September 14, 1994). "Letter to the editor: Whataboutery". The Irish Times. p. 94. Sir, - Full marks to Kevin Myers in Saturday's Irishman's Diary (September 3rd) for not seizing the spirit of this postceasefire moment. In defending the Society of St. Vincent de Paul against a long-forgotten slight from John Taylor MP, he chose not to defend it on its own eminently worthy policies and action, but to indulge, gratuitiously, in a piece of eye-for-an-eye "whataboutery"; in this case "what about, the nonsecular and sectarian features of the old unionist establishment, not to mention present unionist politicians?" This particular piece of muck....

And lots others. So - "whataboutery" (and its variant, "Whataboutism") is just a general British name for "pot calling the kettle black" form of argumentation, which is more or less the point of Option B above (in all its policy-violating terribleness). It is not particularly some specialized term used to describe USSR/Russian propaganda, and I find this whole article to be wrongly footed. Most of it should all be merged into Propaganda in post-Soviet Russia and the part relevant to the Soviet era, to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing after the noticeboard brought me here, so I asked for a copy of this WSJ piece at the Resource Exchange. I can email a copy, but the gist of it is as follows:

The term was popularized by articles in 2007 and 2008 by Edward Lucas, [...] But the roots of "whataboutism" actually go back to the decadeslong sectarian struggle between unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland, known as the Troubles. [...] On Jan. 30, 1974, the Irish Times published a letter to the editor from Sean O'Conaill [...] Three days later, in the same newspaper, John Healy picked up the theme in his "Backbencher" column [...] Commentators on the Troubles embraced the term "whataboutery" and frequently mentioned it in the ensuing years of strife. The "whataboutism" variant appeared as early as 1993

We can't have an article about all uses of this rhetorical device throughout history without OR, but the article should cover the dictionary definitions and history of use of these two related terms. Eperoton (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is problematic, and many editors have questioned its validity since 2015, but have come at the issue from different angles. Originally it was focused on the USSR/Russia, but now it has been extended to take in Trump. However, as we have argued repeatedly, "whataboutism" is just an instance of a tu quoque argument, and therefore a merge would be warranted. It is also strange to have a Soviet Union sidebar when only two sentences in the body of the article relate to the Soviet Union.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you, I've added that info to the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed it up a bit, but it's peculiar that the history of usage is narrated more or less in reverse chronological order. I concur with Jytdog and Jack Upland that the article is currently misguided in its choice of scope. Eperoton (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eperoton:Thank you for the additions, I've removed all paraphrase from source Jill Dougherty, only keeping it to a direct quote from the source. Sagecandor (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• So we can agree to:

1. add a definition of this britishism at tu quoque citing the WSJ, with WLs in it to The Troubles, Propaganda in the Soviet Union, and Propaganda in post-Soviet Russia
2. merge the content about specific propaganda whereever it goes
3. leave a redirect to tu quoque

?

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The tactic and the term is notable. It has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources over time. It deserves its own independent article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is currently conflating different subjects: 1) tu quoque argumentation; 2) the terms whataboutery and whataboutism; 3) a Soviet and Russian tradition of using political arguments of this form. As a result we're getting an implied assertion that Trump isn't just using a tu quoque argument, but specifically a Russian propaganda technique. Eperoton (talk)

That's what the secondary sources say: Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism. Sagecandor (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Some sources do compare the use of this tactic by Trump and Russia, but lexicographical RSs don't define whataboutism as "a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union", but rather as an abstract rhetorical device and synonym of whataboutery (upon closer inspection, RSs disagree on whether it is equivalent to tu quoque, whose definitions generally don't seem to include "changing the subject"). Eperoton (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This article should be based on a preponderance of secondary sources, and not simply be limited to dictionaries. National Public Radio interviewed several academic scholars for Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism. Sagecandor (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is about reflecting all significant viewpoints. In this case, two groups of RSs reflect two different areas of usage: a predominantly British usage, where it has become accepted as an abstract term, and a predominantly American usage associated with Kremlinology and internal political polemics. However, association is different from definition. Take a closer look at the NPR piece: It's not exactly a complicated tactic — any grade-schooler can master the "yeah-well-you-suck-too-so-there" defense. But it came to be associated with the USSR. An expert interviewed for the piece associates it more generally with populism. This is what the opening sentence should reflect, something like: Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery in British English) is a variant of tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• This article really needs to be dissolved; this is all caught up in a RECENTIST fervor about politics. SageCandor are you hearing what folks are saying here, or do we need to go through a formal process? For everybody, if we need a formal process, should it be an AfD, an RfC, or some kind of complex merge request? Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Eperoton:I agree with your suggested first sentence. I'd like to explore further the thoughts of Eperoton before we talk about getting rid of the entire article altogether. I've added the suggestion by Eperoton to the article at DIFF. Does it look better to you, Eperoton ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the article should focus on the word itself. The rhetorical tactic of tu quoque is ubiquitous. However, the widespread use of the word in connection with the Soviet Union is notable. The sources are all relatively recent, but are very widespread. As I say in the section below, we do not have to enumerate every single one of them in the article. Finally, I have never been a fan of fallacy mongering: in many situations, pointing out the hypocrisy of the opponent is a perfectly legitimate thing to do; indeed, even the Economist article starts with this point. They only object to its overuse.

SOVIET propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about...” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth).

It is not a bad tactic. Every criticism needs to be put in a historical and geographical context. A country that has solved most of its horrible problems deserves praise, not to be lambasted for those that remain. Similarly, behaviour that may be imperfect by international standards can be quite good for a particular neighbourhood.

But it can be overdone—and in the case of Soviet propagandists, it was...

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sagecandor. I think the change in the opening sentence was a big improvement. I haven't yet formed an opinion about potential further changes. While I share the concerns expressed by other editors here and have sympathy for their proposals, I also don't quite see how a merge might work, and I'm skeptical that we can reach a consensus for any sweeping changes given the variety of different proposals.

One difficulty with any merge into tu quoque is the problematic state of that article. It's an almost-stub, which is poorly sourced (ref 2 even fails my malware filter), and whose formulation of the argument does not straightforwardly apply to whataboutism, since it suggests that the original proposition is statement of a general principle rather than a criticism. There are actually at least two different forms of tu quoque, as discussed in this book, for instance, and there are some discrepancies in how they're defined in different sources. (There are also psychological studies which assess to what extent this form of argument is judged as reasonable, though this would be a nice-to-have rather than a must-have improvement to the article).

One difficulty with merging content into propaganda articles is that we would have to break the content into Soviet and post-Soviet articles, while the sources cited here largely emphasize the continuity (that was the context in which Lucas popularized the term).

One difficulty with refocusing this article on the term(s) rather than the argument is deciding what that would mean in practice, since the sources generally don't distinguish between the two.

I think we can make some progress in the right direction by expanding and improving the articles, both this one and tu quoque. For example, we could cover the usage of "whataboutery" in the context of the Troubles, and other uses in the UK (some sources mention that it featured in discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Eperoton (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, we went through an analogous discussion concerning Military deception and Maskirovka. IMO, they are as different as Tu quoque and Whataboutism. Merger would not be helpful. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't quite analogous, since maskirovka is a term which in English clearly refers only to a Soviet/Russian phenomenon, synonymous with Russian military deception, while whataboutism is a general term associated with a Soviet/Russian context. We could have an article called something like Whataboutism in Soviet and Russian politics, through, which would be analogous to Russian military deception. Eperoton (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

"Analysis" section

This section is a disaster. It seems to contain every instance on Google of the word "whataboutism". Moreover, it's an unreadable mess, and there's little "analysis" to be found there. Can we agree to please pick a few themes among the uses and summarize them, giving a few representative cases? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think that's what's happened. There aren't many uses of the term, but they've all been collected here...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that is WP:OR. We summarize sources that themselves already express accepted knowledge; we don't create new knowledge by gathering all instances of X ourselves. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No time to comment in more detail here, at NOR/N and WP:AE yet (got some real-life work to do) but I would concur that this section deserves some WP:TNT and a rebuild, if we can find sources actually discussing the spread of "whataboutism" as a word mostly used for criticizing Russia since 2012, and more recently Trump. It's been fascinating to watch the narrative evolve over a few years: live linguistics in action. — JFG ^talk 22:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Section reorg

I've rearranged history of use of the argument into distinct Soviet/Russian and Trump sections, and I think the Analysis section should be refactored as well. It discusses some cases where the term has been applied to US figures, but not Trump. I think we should have a section called "In US politics", with a subsection for Trump and another for Other. Material from Analysis that relates only to the USSR/Russia should be merged into the relevant section, and material which compares Trump's use and Russian use, should go under Trump. Eperoton (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ownership!

This seems to be turning into an example of WP:OWNERSHIP. A key symptom is the use of long discursive footnotes. Can all editors recognise that this a collaborative project, and that they don't have to insert or defend their opinion on every inch of territory, including the footnotes?--Jack Upland (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This cuts both ways, so let's not go there. It poisons the well and assumes bad faith. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't own this page. I want it pulped.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Whole article about the subject

'Facts don't matter': How Trump uses one of Putin's favorite propaganda tools Business Insider

BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

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: [18] 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.[19] 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)

Still no example of actual use of the term prior to Lucas' blog post of October 27, 2007. I'll wait. WP:There is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 06:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries dates origin of term to well before 2008

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

This is well before 2008.

Citation:

• "whataboutism", Oxford Dictionaries, 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.[20] 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)

There's nothing odd about the archive date of a webpage, so that doesn't make the online OED anything like unreliable. At worst, it's the free, "junior" version of the main OED entry, so it would give less information, but not wrong information. So we should use the online OED as it appears. (For the doubters here, the OED is considered a secondary source on Wikipedia, according the essay Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources.)

Unfortunately, my old OED CDROM with its out-of-date encryption and security system cannot run on my new machine. I tried a bunch of compatibility modes, and running the program as administrator, but no dice. Binksternet (talk) 05:42, 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)

Watch your tone, please. — JFG ^talk 05:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Laughable. My tone is just fine, thank you very much. Why don't you call out THIS and we'll see about that. Sagecandor (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Jocular intermission
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Oops, you did it again! (indulging in whataboutism) — JFG talk 05:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Oops, JFG exposed as having a double standard. . Treats "Jack" one way, and myself, the opposite. How revealing. Sagecandor (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to topic. Here's a secondary source, as requested, which dates the emergence of the term "whataboutism" to the Economist article of 2008. [21] — JFG ^talk 05:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Source tagged as "Opinion" piece. Sagecandor (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

At least, contrary to the OED online blurb, it's signed by a human, it's dated, and it's written in journalistic tone. The article makes a clear distinction of the word (emerged in 2008 and used increasingly in relation to Russia in the 2010s) and the act (usage of rhetorical deflection by Soviet propagandists in the 1960s and even in the 1880s with the famous "lynching negroes" reference). — JFG ^talk 05:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO and Binksternet:You both already commented in this subsection. Do you agree with the opinion above the POV of the user that Oxford Dictionaries [22] is a poorer source than one admittedly tagged as an "Opinion" piece [23] ? Sagecandor (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, the OED is a perfectly fine source for us, not a lesser source but a very high quality one. The free online version offers less information but is perfectly reliable. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with comment by Binksternet here. Sagecandor (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I have seen everything! An editor challenging this unimpeachable source for an obvious fact. Nothing is sacred on WP. I suggest you not insinuate the derogatory "POV" into a sourcing discussion. It's unseemly. In fact, it's whataboutism. SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO:Thank you, stricken, above. Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's an impeccable journalistic secondary source, The Wall Street Journal: [24]

The term was popularized by articles in 2007 and 2008 by Edward Lucas, senior editor at the Economist. Mr. Lucas, who served as the magazine’s Moscow bureau chief from 1998 to 2002, saw “whataboutism” as a typical Cold War style of argumentation, with “the Kremlin’s useful idiots” seeking to “match every Soviet crime with a real or imagined western one.”

— JFG ^talk 06:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal merely says Lucas "popularized" the term, not that he coined it, which he did not. Sagecandor (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but Lucas himself said he'd heard it in LSE debates. I have never doubted that, but I just doubt the claim that it enjoyed wide currency. I agree that OED entry (if authentic) is worth citing, but it dates the word to the 1990s, not the Cold War. Of course, the USSR didn't collapse until 1991, but the Eastern Bloc had collapsed in 1989, and most of the Cold War antagonism has dissipated. Therefore that OED entry does not demonstrate that the term was in widespread use during the Cold War as claimed by the article. In addition, the 1989 edition, which is the last edition in print, does not include the term, which anyone can check. Many would use the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 as a marker for the end of the Cold War, but at that time whataboutism was not recorded as a word by the OED. And, as I stated earlier, the current online version of the OED does not include whataboutism. Furthermore, I have checked the Oxford Dictionary of New Words for 1991 and 1997. The dictionary aimed to be a guide to new words and phrases that come to the public attention in the previous 15 or 16 years. Neither of them record whataboutism.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: According to Jack, citing the Oxford Dictionaries when they have an actual entry titled, whataboutism, should not be admissible DIFF, and yet at the same time, citing the Oxford English Dictionary for an absence of something should be allowed DIFF. This is hypocritical. Sagecandor (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I said the actual entry was "worth citing". My comment is just above your comment!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"If authentic" ??? You can see the hyperlink for yourself, yes? Sagecandor (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I know what I said, and so does any fair minded person. I did not say that it "should not be admissable" (which are your words). Anyway, I thought it was strange that the current OED online does not record "whataboutism" if it did previously. See here. However, I now see from the discussion below that you are not citing the OED, but the Oxford Living Dictionary. The fact that it is not cited by the OED shows that it has never been in widespread use. We certainly do not have evidence (apart from Lucas's claims) that it was used during the Cold War.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true, we now have multiple secondary sources saying it was used in the Cold War during the Soviet Union. Sagecandor (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And we have zero evidence of actual use in print prior to 2007. — JFG ^talk 06:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be primary sources. We have reliable secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

provisional support for the proposed reword, except for minor grammar & style tweaks, EXCEPT on the point that "whataboutism" is not inherently a "fallacy". it is a line of arguement, a debating technique; mostly about accusing one's opponent of hypocrisy. the validity of the point being made depends on the circumstances of the case(s).

& quite frankly it matters that black ppl in the usa were being treated APPALLINGLY (under the law & common practices) well into the 1960s, while america was simultaneously trumpetting itself as the paragon of freedom, democracy, & equality of the free world, in the context of the cold war. Lx 121 (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Oxford Dictionaries entry on whataboutism is inappropriate

This removal DIFF of Oxford Dictionaries as a source in this article is wholly inappropriate.

Agree with this edit DIFF by Binksternet.

Please don't remove this source again.

Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The actual OED has no entry for this word and never has done—will you please stop claiming that it does. The website you're citing is the Oxford Living Dictionary, a freebie site which is run by the OUP but has little relationship to the actual OED other than sharing a publisher. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have more info about the Oxford Living Dictionary ? Sagecandor (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Nightscream made Oxford Living Dictionary a redirect to Oxford English Dictionary. Sagecandor (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I thank Iridescent for the clarification and it appears Nightscream had previously redirected Oxford Living Dictionary to Oxford English Dictionary. The page there for whataboutism is from Oxford Living Dictionary, whose About Page about the site says it is part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two are unrelated, other than both being owned by the OUP. The website for the real OED is (unsurprisingly) [www.oed.com www.oed.com], and always has been. Per their About Us page, the page you're citing is a freebie site aimed at documenting current language and practical usage [and the] latest new words from fast moving spheres such as popular culture or technology—this is in direct contrast to the OED, which (as per their own description) As a historical dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on present-day meanings; the OED is about the meaning, history and pronunciation of words, and except in exceptional circumstances never lists neologisms. ‑ Iridescent 19:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So is the redirect inappropriate or not? If it was, I apologize. If the community here think reversal of that edit is appropriate, I do not have any argument. Nightscream (talk)

They are indeed related. About Page about the site says they are part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

They're two unrelated publications from the same publisher. Just being published by the OUP (one of the world's largest publishing houses) doesn't mean they're the same work—you may as well claim that The Demon Headmaster is the OED by that logic. ‑ Iridescent 20:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you dispute that the About Page about the site says they are part of Oxford Dictionaries? Sagecandor (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful link provided by Iridescent -- What are the main differences between the OED and Oxford Dictionaries?. The reliability of both is good. Sagecandor (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

They are very different products. The OED is expensive either as a print version or an online subscription. The Oxford Living Dictionary is free. This indicates that it is less reliable than the OED, and that less work has gone into it. They would not release the OLD for free if it was just as good as the OED. The OED is based on a lot of research and cites usages of the word, attempting to get the earliest use. The OLD just says "1990s". It doesn't cite a particular usage. I don't think this is particularly reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree they are different products. Oxford Living Dictionary is acknowledged as part of Oxford Dictionaries per About Page about the site. It is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

A less reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

responding to above: they are NOT "unrelated" publications. that assertion is absurd "prima facie". it's still the same "brand", & the different distribution models do not "prove" inferiority of the contents. o.l.d. entries are generally less extensive than o.e.d. ones.

that does not make it an "unreliable source.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it makes it less reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cold War era usage

• Eperoton, what reliable sources say that during the Cold War, Western officials did NOT refer to the Soviet propaganda strategy as whataboutism? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: Dictionaries from OUP (the publisher of the standard historical dictionary of English) say "Origin - 1990s" and Zimmer (a lexicographer) reports 1993 as the earliest attested usage. I'm not sure it's even WP:DUE to mention the other sources in the lead. For example, what authority does Andreas Umland, who was in the early 20s when the Soviet Union fell apart, have to speak about Cold War usage which is not attested by professional lexicographers? Eperoton (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

[notifying DrFleischman about new location for this thread.] I'd like to have a broader discussion about Cold War era usage of the word, as I have developed serious WP:WEIGHT concerns. We have two specialist sources on lexicography which agree with each other: OUP dictionaries give 1970s as the first attested use of whataboutery and Zimmer cites a specific OpEd from 1974. OUP dictionaries give 1990s for whataboutism and Zimmer cites a 1993 book as the earliest usage he found. A contradictory set of sources, which assert that the term was used by Kremlin watchers during the Cold War includes Lucas' 2007 piece, where he suggests as much, and later sources by Umland (a thinktank publication) and Buckley (a blog hosted by FT). Umland (born 1967) is a German specialist on Russian/Ukrainian history, and not a specialist on the history of the English language more generally or its use among Kremlin-watchers during the Soviet era specifically. Lucas is a British journalist who headed the Moscow Bureau for The Economist starting from 1998. I don't know who Buckley is. A few questions for discussion:

1) Is it due to present only the view on Soviet Era usage in the lead without presenting the view of lexicographers? (I say no)

2) Is it due to present the lexicographical view on first attested use of whataboutism in the lead, with our without the other view (I say probably not)

3) Is it due to present both views in the body? (I'm not sure, but possibly only Lucas', since the other instances seem to be non-specialist repetitions of what he wrote)

4) Should we replace this passage in the lead with the assertion that Lucas popularized the term whataboutism, per Zimmer? (I say yes)

Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Of course historians are likely to know what happened in their area of expertise. The bulk of reliable sources say it was used back then. So the answers would be yes, yes, the views of historians, no. This article is about a technique, not a word. If you want to analyse a word, got to Wiktionary. Stickee (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Furhtermore, I don't know why you have such a strange focus on the etymology. This article is about the technique, yet you've tried to devote all your discussion about the etymology. Who cares? It's the technique and rhetorical fallacy this article is about. The sources are abundantly clear that the technique was used during the Cold War period. Stickee (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Stickee: We normally wouldn't focus so much on the etymology, however in this case the historical usage of the word is at the core of the whole premise, popularized by Lucas, that whataboutism would be somehow a deception technique created and perfected by the Soviets. This has been proven ridiculous, as every schoolyard shows daily instances of whataboutism. The rhetoric device in itself is nothing new, but labeling it "whataboutism" in order to discredit a political opponent (be it Russia or Trump) is the phenomenon to focus on. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If the article is about the technique then it would be better handled by a redirect to, and brief mention at tu quoque, as suggested by Jytdog, and others, above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's a contradictory argument. If this article is not about the term, but about the technique, then it should be a redirect. Merely saying the technique was used in the Cold War proves nothing: the technique was used since the beginning of time. If you want to situate this article in the Cold War and since, you have to talk about the term.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• This issue seems legitimate but I'm not personally inclined to weigh in on it. My inquiry was based solely on the lead section. If there's a bona fide dispute among reliable sources then that dispute should be fairly described per our neutrality policy, though that dispute does not merit inclusion in the lead section. If there's no bona fide dispute then I'd support inclusion of a sentence in the lead section. Either way the "according to some source" phrase is inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Eperoton: From the balance of two groups of sources that you point out, we are seeing a pattern of use of this word: in the 1970s and 1990s about accusations of hypocrisy among political enemies in The Troubles, and from 2007 to present about accusations of hypocrisy among political enemies in "Cold War II". The word itself is being used as a weapon in those conflicts, and that was what I attempted to convey in lede proposal B. As noted by several commenters, this proposal has OR problems and won't fly. However, we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and we probably can find a correct formulation based on extent sources, without putting the narrative that "Soviets invented whataboutism" in Wikipedia voice. Again, the word "whataboutism" did not appear in print about the Soviet Union before Lucas' posts, so that recent musings of Russia critics should not be construed as proof that this tactic was named this way during the Cold War: there is no material trace that it was. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at this version of the artcile from 2015, which looks much simpler and straightforward than the current stretched version. — JFG ^talk 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If I recall, that was actually a version from during an edit war/dispute much similar to this. The stable version was actually this: [25]. Stickee (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are a couple of points which don't make sense to me in your first pair of comments above, Stickee. First, the statement we're discussing makes an assertion about etymology of the term. It will make an assertion about etymology regardless of how we weigh the conflicting views on this point, and that's why I've "tried to devote all [my] discussion [to] etymology" in this subsection. Secondly, the historians who have expertise in the area relevant to this assertion (etymology) are lexicographers, particularly historians of English word usage. I have no idea what "bulk" of RSs you're referring to, but there's only one historian cited for the other view, who is a specialist in the history of Russia/Ukraine and not a specialist in the history of the English language. I agree with DrFleischman that the current phrasing is suboptimal, so I will add the opposing view to the lead instead of simply attributing the other one. Eperoton (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This addition [26] by you looks to be mostly okay by me. Although there might be a bit too much of a focus on the etymology per WP:BALASPS. Most sources don't focus on the etymology of the term that highly, so the article shouldn't either. Stickee (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Except that proponents of this article have aggressively insisted it was used during the Cold War, referring to sources like Lucas. But this just doesn't seem to be true. I guess it doesn't matter when most of your opinions are false...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Section headings

The topic was approved in 2015, then only becomes controversial because Trump is included? If Use by the Soviet Union is a valid heading, so is use by Trump (and 100,000,000 other internet trolls). SUGGESTION -- have a main heading called " Notable users" and move Trump, Soviets, and others to that section as subheadings. Presumably, people will contribute cases from all sides of the political spectrum, and the practice would be exposed as fallacious in all usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanpaul55 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

From WP:TPO: "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial."

Please do so in the future.

Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see what would possibly be controversial in changing heading levels without touching the header text; this was done in order to group two threads discussing the same issue, viz. references to "whataboutism" before 2008. Hope you can accept that this makes sense. — JFG ^talk 06:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Strongly disagree. Especially while active disagreements were ongoing, on this talk page. Request to have the header moved back the way it was. Request for user to abide by page they cite themselves, WP:TPO, and to follow, "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Sagecandor (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Nobody owns talk page headers. As I quoted WP:TPO in my edit summary: Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. And I respected your header, not changing a single letter in it, just grouped it with a previous thread on pre-2008 sources; also ungrouped that thread from the Trump/Putin discussion where it was irrelevant. — JFG ^talk 06:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You also neglected to discuss, first. Sagecandor (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Introduction to the subject

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is for option C. Option B is a non-starter because it contradicts some reliable sources in the etymology section, which claim that the term was used before Lucas' blog post. A plurality of editors prefer option C to option A, because the term is sometimes used outside the Soviet context. I've changed the lead accordingly. Per the discussion below at "Incorrect classification of Whataboutism", we may want to replace a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy in the first sentence with something like a rhetorical technique. I'll leave that up to y'all. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Shoul d this article start by describing whataboutism as a Soviet-era propaganda technique or as a recent name for a classic rhetorical device? — JFG ^talk 16:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Option A: Soviet-era propaganda technique (the status quo)

Whataboutism is a propaganda technique formerly used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world, and subsequently used as a form of propaganda in post-Soviet Russia. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. It is a case of tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy), a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.

Option B: Recent name for a classic rhetorical device

Whataboutism is a rhetoric technique to deflect criticism by pointing out similar faults in the adversary's behaviour. It is a variant of the classical tu quoque fallacy or the "pot and the kettle" metaphor. The word first appeared in writing in a 2007 blog post by British journalist Edward Lucas, who exposed it to a wider audience in a 2008 article for The Economist. 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.

Update: Additional option C added below

Survey

Please indicate your support for Option A or Option B with a brief rationale. Longer arguments should go to #Discussion.

• Option A. The majority of secondary sources refer to whataboutism as a form of Soviet and Russian propaganda. Examples:

Examples of secondary sources referring to whataboutism as a form of Soviet and Russian propaganda:

Kurtzleben, Danielle (17 March 2017). "Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism". NPR. Retrieved 20 May 2017. Bertrand, Natasha (4 April 2017). "'Poisoned' Russian dissident: Trump echoed 'one of the Kremlin's oldest propaganda tools'". Business Insider. Retrieved 4 July 2017. Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism — a technique used by Soviet propagandists to deflect criticism from the West. Lucas, Edward (7 February 2017). "Trump has become Putin's ally in Russia's war on the West". CNN. Retrieved 3 July 2017. 'Whataboutism' was a favorite Kremlin propaganda technique during the Cold War. It aimed to portray the West as so morally flawed that its criticism of the Soviet empire was hypocritical. Headley, James (September 2015). "Challenging the EU's claim to moral authority: Russian talk of'double standards'". Asia Europe Journal. 13 (3): 297–307. doi:10.1007/s10308-015-0417-y. Retrieved 4 July 2017. Soviet-style 'whataboutism' which signifies a revival of Cold War-style propaganda Dougherty, Jill (2014), Everyone Lies: The Ukraine Conflict and Russia’s Media Transformation (PDF), Harvard Kennedy School Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, retrieved 4 July 2017, 'what-about-ism,' a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government in which criticism is deflected by cries of 'but what about?...' Gessen, Masha (18 February 2017). "In Praise of Hypocrisy". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 July 2017. This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of 'whataboutism,' the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt. This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called 'a killer.' Clifton, Denise (20 July 2017). "Childish Rants or Putin-Style Propaganda?". Mother Jones. Retrieved 22 July 2017. a traditional Russian propaganda strategy called 'whataboutism' ... In Trump's version of whataboutism, he repeatedly takes a word leveled in criticism against him and turns it back on his opponents—sidestepping the accusation and undercutting the meaning of the word at the same time. Opoka, Iurii. "International Approaches to the Crisis in Ukraine" (PDF). Polish Journal of Political Science. 2 (2): 73. Retrieved 4 July 2017. three main techniques that are used by Russian propaganda for constructing 'right' agenda for EU's media: 'what-about-ism' (we can't criticize Russia, because the West does the same), 'An aversion to moral clarity' ( the truth is in the middle), 'It's-all-our-fault-ism' (the West has provoked Russia). Miller, Christopher (29 April 2015). "Russian media is loving the Baltimore riots". Mashable. Retrieved 4 July 2017. Russia's propaganda machine got to work exploiting the unrest with what is known locally as 'whataboutism.' In the Soviet era, any criticism of the Motherland — such human rights violations or censorship — was met with a 'what about...' in an attempt to redirect attention away from Moscow. Skaskiw, Roman (27 March 2016). "Nine Lessons of Russian Propaganda". Small Wars Journal. Retrieved 5 July 2017. Russian propaganda destroys meaning. They pursue several tactics including the false moral equivalences of "whataboutism," polluting the information space

For these reasons, we should follow what the majority of secondary sources say, and keep current version of the article and note that whataboutism is most commonly known as a propaganda tactic. Sagecandor (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Additionally, the "Option B" is factually wrong. Per Oxford Dictionaries entry on whataboutism, no matter how many times users say it on the talk page here, the term was NOT coined by Edward Lucas in the year 2007 or 2008. That is WRONG and provably FALSE and yet users keep pushing out the nonsense in contradiction to the Oxford English Dictionary. Sagecandor (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This assertion has been clarified earlier on the talk page: the Oxford English Dictionary never mentioned whataboutism, even in its lengthiest editions purporting to document every last word of the English language. Neither has any 20th-century publication been shown to include this word. The online entry cited here comes from the Oxford Living Dictionaries, a work managed by the same publisher Oxford University Press but is unrelated. The OLD describes itself as including the "latest new words from fast moving spheres such as popular culture or technology"; "whataboutism" is such a word. Option B is factually correct, while option A unduly attributes the origins of whataboutism as a deflecting technique to the former Soviet Union. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Living Dictionary is part of Oxford Dictionaries per their About Page description of their website. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct: that is a division of Oxford University Press. Still, OLD is a distinct work from OED. — JFG ^talk 20:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct: Oxford Living Dictionary is part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all from the same Oxford scholarship, just different presentations of it, for different audiences. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

OMG! Just cite them both, as they are both RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I cited them both in the "Etymology" section,[27] then Sagecandor erased the OED because s/he doesn't like the fact that OED excludes the word.[28] This is getting disruptive. — JFG ^talk 05:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, unless I'm missing something, it looks like they just deleted your OR and editorializing. You can't cite a source and add your own comment that they don't say something. That's classic OR. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer that this is classic OR. We must rely on secondary sources on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Stating that the OED does not include this word is a perfectly WP:Verifiable fact, does not constitute original research. We can debate about the wording to avoid editorializing, for sure. But when several RS are contradictory with each other, we can't cherry-pick those that match a preferred narrative: we must present all facts and claims to the reader, and let them make up their mind. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that in this edit you wrote: "...asserts that the word originated in the 1990s, but provides no example of use from that period." The last half is your editorializing. You can't just add "but provides no example of use from that period." You have to simply state that the dictionary states that "the word originated in the 1990s", even though you don't like what it says. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct on this part, and I have not challenged the removal of that half-sentence. However, I did restore the OED citation over your revert, because it is just a statement of facts, which are neither OR nor SYNTH. — JFG ^talk 09:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, just for the record here, we're talking about this addition. Whether that's editorializing OR or not is something for a noticeboard to decide. You're using an absence of evidence as evidence of absence. We do have RS which say the term was in use. Whether or not it was included in some dictionary is another matter. Don't conflate the two issues. Dictionaries, by nature, have to be behind the curve (just like Wikipedia!). -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:Perhaps you can explain here better than I, why you can't cite a source that explicitly does NOT mention the subject of this article, as evidence of something? Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option A. Of course the concept appeared before the 2000s, per OED online, so Option B cannot be correct. I would, however, like to incorporate some wording of Option B, specifically calling whataboutism a variant rather than a straight case of tu quoque. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. Changed word, "case", to "variant", at DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: That was not the OED; see above. — JFG ^talk 20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet: It was instead Oxford Living Dictionary, a part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option B with modification to say that Lucas popularised the term. We can note in the text that he says he heard it during the Cold War, the Oxford Living Dictionary says it arose after the Cold War (in the 1990s), and that the Oxford English Dictionary which is the definitive record of words in English doesn't record it at all. It clearly was not a widespread term in the Cold War. Despite extensive research no one has found an example of it being used during the Cold War, and we cannot make sweeping assertions based on the opinions of a blogger. I don't doubt that Lucas heard the term being tossed around by students, but that's not notable at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Lucas is senior editor at The Economist, not just a "blogger". Sagecandor (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Agree with Jack Upland that the text would be more accurate to say Lucas popularised the term. This bit is already in the article body text. Sagecandor (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option B – No source has been found demonstrating use of the term in print or electronic form before Lucas' blog post of 2007 and article + book of 2008. The focus of the article should be on the word, not on the act, which is extremely commonplace. As a word, whataboutism has indeed been used primarily to criticize Russia in the 2010s, with back reference to Soviet times, and we cannot say that the Soviets invented whataboutism: they invented neither the act (millennia old), not the word (unused in print before 2007). — JFG ^talk 19:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd sentence of "Option B" is unsourced. Sagecandor (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that the word pre-dates Lucas is unsourced. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is sourced to multiple secondary sources that don't mention Lucas. Sagecandor (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources talk about whataboutism as a behaviour; not as a word. Nobody disputes that Soviet propagandists engaged in whataboutism (as did propagandists from all over the world), but it wasn't called that at the time. The word is new. — JFG ^talk 20:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The sources talk about both. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option B - don't be silly, this is a Neologism for ancient behaviour, reportedly coined about some unstated usage circa 2008. Not 'formerly' used as if defunct, nor exclusive to Russians, it goes on every day and I surely used 'what about' (something re my sister) long before 2008. In any case, the focus is on the subject not origin, and the meaning is not as Russian -- see modern mention and urban dictionary or oxfrord dictionaries for example. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Wordpress blog and Urban dictionary are unreliable. Last source you cite, Oxford Dictionaries, dates origin to 1990s. Sagecandor (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

An online dictionary blurb dates the origin to the 1990s but does not cite any example of actual use at that time. It looks like a honest mistake on the part of that source, because the word has not been seen in archives of print and electronic media before 2007. — JFG ^talk 21:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionaries is a reliable source. Sagecandor (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option B - Most neutral and correct way to describe the term. PackMecEng (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option A - Seems to be the most historically accurate definition as well as the consensus of most sources that whataboutism refers to a propaganda technique rather than a form of rhetoric. Karthanitesh (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option A - per others. Supported by sources and most accurate.Casprings (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option A (status quo) - this is the description clearly given by pretty much all the sources in the article. Additionally, here's just looking at a few scholarly sources:

"“what-about-ism,” a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government in which criticism is deflected by cries of “but what about?...”" - Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy [29]

"...'whataboutism', whenever Russia was criticised..." - Richard Sakwa, Professor of Russian and European politics [30]

"...for restoring the Soviet habit of “whataboutism,”" - Simon Saradzhyan, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University

"The resultant broadcasts are reminiscent of the Soviet-style practice of “whataboutism”" - Jeanne Wilson, Professor of Russian Studies, Wheaton College [31]

Stickee (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Stickee Use of the whataboutism technique by Soviets and others is not in dispute; existence of the word "whataboutism" pre-1991, or even pre-2007, is contested. — JFG ^talk 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there seems to be confusion about what the issue is.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland, that's true. Wikipedia articles are not bound by particular words. This article is about the concept, not just the word. An article can use sources which describe a word or which describe the concept described by a word, even when the word is not used. Synonyms can be used.

Granted this can be carried too far into OR or SYNTH territory. It just has to be clear that the source is not being used to state or describe something it is not saying. Are we doing that here? If so, which source being used is in question? Let's look at it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option A For two reasons. First, per WP:LEAD, the lead just summarizes the body of the article. The body of the article is overwhelmingly about USSR/Russian use of the term, and Option A does this much better than Option B. Second, Option B contains pure WP:OR in the claim of "first appearance". It is not clear to me that this article should exist at all, but that is a different issue altogether. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Neither. The current version of the first paragraph appears to more faithfully reflect the sources, as far as I can tell. The sources indicate the term has been predominantly but not exclusively used in reference to Russian propaganda. This is reflected appropriately by the current wording but not by either Option A or B. As to the origin of the term, I agree with many others that it cannot be verifiably attributed to Lucas due to the Oxford Living Dictionary source. Whether the the OLD is the OED or not is irrelevant. Suggesting that the OED is the only reliable dictionary source is completely contrary to our reliable sources guideline. And then there are the other non-dictionary sources cited in the body of the article that indicate that the term was used during the Soviet era. Finally, the last sentence of Option B appears to be non-neural synth. As least based on our article, the sources discuss the increased invocation of whataboutism by Russia since 2012, not the increased description of those invocation by Western media sources. This article is about whataboutism, not about the media's use of the term, and placing this level of emphasis on an ancillary issue is distracting and undue. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option A makes sense to me. btw, here is an interesting article about this topic from March 2017 (USA re: Trump). http://www.npr.org/2017/03/17/520435073/trump-embraces-one-of-russias-favorite-propaganda-tactics-whataboutism Peter K Burian (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A seems to be the best. The context of Option B can be explained in a lede paragraph though. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Debate goes here.

Note: During the ongoing Request for Comment, please don't radically change article body text from prior stable version to support your preferred version of the lede section, as was done by JFG. Cannot cite a source as evidence for absence of something, unless that source itself explicitly states that, as was done at [32]. Cannot cite a source for "first documented instance", when that source itself says it is NOT the "first documented instance" and instead the source itself says "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'.", as was done at [33]. Sagecandor (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The RfC is about the first paragraph: that should probably remain untouched while it's running. Editing the rest of the article should not be blocked. If you want to debate some edits, please open a separate section. — JFG ^talk 05:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, you specifically made changes which suit your proposed "Option B" version of the lede, during this Request for Comment. Sagecandor (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not make those changes because I "prefer" that option; I made those changes to clarify what is known about the etymology of this term from various sources, showing claims of existence of the word in different time periods, so that the reader can look at all the evidence and make up their mind. On the other hand, you are cherry-picking sources which match your version and selectively censoring sources that do not. (Oops, sorry, I just what-about-ised you, this seems hard to avoid in regular discourse…) — JFG ^talk 06:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH, which is policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Sagecandor (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LAWYER, stop bludgeoning the discussion and please address the central point that several people have been making: no evidence of this word is present in the literature prior to 2007. — JFG ^talk 06:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to backup your claims, that explicitly states what you wish to say? Sagecandor (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Oxford English Dictionary. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Does the Oxford English Dictionary explicitly mention that it does not have an entry on whataboutism ? Sagecandor (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an idiotic question. Does the Oxford English Dictionary explicitly mention that it does not have an entry on "gobbledyquackery"? — JFG ^talk 06:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTHESIS, "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Sagecandor (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You already said that, and nobody is "combining different parts of one source". When the most complete dictionary of the English language does not include a word, that is evidence enough that this word does not exist or is too recent and rarely used to be mentioned. — JFG ^talk 06:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If the source itself does not explicitly mention the term, it can't be used. You can't cite an essay in order to get away with violating site policy of WP:SYNTHESIS. That would open the door to users citing books that do NOT mention things, as evidence for things they wish to claim. Sagecandor (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This conversation has reached peak non-productivity. You can't find an example of use prior to 2007 and you won't admit that the word wasn't used prior to 2007. I can not help you further. — JFG ^talk 06:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We have reliable secondary sources that state this. Sagecandor (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The OED is a reliable source. It does not record widespread usage of the term. This is the dog that did not bark. Year after year, you and your co-thinkers have failed to produce a source that uses the term during the Cold War. The OED clearly shows that it was not widely used in that period or since. We have a duty not to misleading our readers.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The question isn't just whether the actual word was used, but whether whataboutism was practiced. Those two ideas must not be conflated so that an apparent lack of one negates the other. We all agree it was practiced, and sources describe it. Don't limit yourself to just the word. We're also documenting the concept. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just let the RFC run its course. People will answer that are uninvolved and at the end, someone not involved can close. Casprings (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Closure? Option C

Option C: Dictionary definition, noting association with Soviet/Russian propaganda (introduced by Sagecandor based on suggestion by Eperoton)

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery in British English) is a variant of tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.

@JFG, Sagecandor, BullRangifer, Binksternet, Jack Upland, Markbassett, PackMecEng, Karthanitesh, Casprings, and Jytdog: We seem to have reached consensus on the alternative version of the opening sentence, which is currently in the mainspace (Update: reverted but can be viewed with citations here) (aside from any merges or changes of scope that may still be under consideration). If I don't hear any objections in the next couple of days, I'll close the RFC, so Legobot stops asking folks to comment on the original alternatives. Update: Following objections from DrFleischman and Stickee, the RFC continues with this version as Option C. Eperoton (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ok by me Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Support – Agree that the new lede sentence describes the subject more correctly. I still believe the lede paragraph should mention that in recent years this word has been used as a criticism of Russia (prior usage referred to Irish history), but I suppose we can discuss this outside of the RfC. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC) @Jytdog and Binksternet: Can you clarify whether you support this text as option C? — JFG ^talk 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with the lead section now. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm late to the show, but this does not make sense to me. I do not understand what the claimed consensus is. I see 6 !votes for Option A and 4 !votes against. That is definitely not a clear enough consensus to treat it as WP:SNOW and end the RfC. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dr Fleischman, the consensus forming is for Option A. Reverting the change to the lead sentence (against consensus!) until the RfC is closed. Stickee (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: The consensus I referred to was the version you voted for, which was current at the time and was up for a couple of days, before Stickee reverted it back just now. So far, Stickee is the only editor who has objected to it. Eperoton (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The version I voted for was neither A nor B, so how can you say there was consensus for it? Please tell me what I'm missing. Regardless, this is definitely not a candidate for WP:SNOW, so the rfc template should not be removed after only 5 days. (Btw I'm watching this page now.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

As I wrote, there seemed to be a consensus for it because no one reverted it for some time (which is one of the ways WP:CONSENSUS is established), and this question was a request for an explicit confirmation. I'm inclined to classify Stickee's revert as disruptive, given that of the 6 editors who previously expressed support for option A, 3 have subsequently expressed support for the version Stickee reverted (Sagecandor by making the change, and Jytdog with Binksternet through their comments in this subsection), while the 2 others have so far expressed no objection to it, so the assertion that the RFC is leaning toward option A is clearly false. The problem with keeping this RFC open is that the discussion has moved on in later sections on this talk page since regular contributors have stopped participating in this RFC, so Legobot is asking uninvolved editors to participate in a largely obsolete discussion. Eperoton (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think there's a single thing in your last comment I agree with. I could go over each point stick to the main ones. No, Stickee's revert was not disruptive. And you clearly have little experience with how RfCs work. The very point of an RfC is to bring in comments by uninvolved editors, and extended participation by regular contributors is usually counterproductive. Let the discussion run its course. If JFG wants to add an Option C that represents your your so-called consensus, then they are free to do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the opposition, I'm changing the closure proposal to an Option C, as suggested. Eperoton (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support for reasons stated in my RfC vote. Thanks for reframing this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support The term is defined abstractly, with no reference to Russia, in multiple dictionaries (Oxford, Cambridge), and we have to reflect that per NPOV. We also have to reflect the sources which tell us that whataboutism (both the term and the technique) has been associated with Soviet/Russian propaganda. However, association is not definition. The difference can be hard to determine from usage in context (or impossible without OR), but some of the cited sources are explicit. For example, the cited NPR article states "It's not exactly a complicated tactic [...] But it came to be associated with the USSR". An example of a term which is defined as a Soviet/Russian phenomenon is maskirovka, which Oxford dictionaries define as: "In Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union: political or military deception ...". No dictionaries that I'm aware of define whataboutism in this way. Eperoton (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support I do believe that this conveys the usage of the term during the Cold War, which frankly is what most people think about when they read it than they do now (the term itself, not necessarily the idea behind the term) Karthanitesh (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• You can't just suddenly say this is option C in a running RFC. If you wish, withdraw the current RFC and start another one.Casprings (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't open the RFC, and I got pushback when I attempted to follow route 2 in WP:RFCEND ("The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time"). Only the OP (JFG) can follow route 1 and withdraw it, though I would hate to lose the feedback we already got in this subsection and ask everyone to start from scratch. I followed DrFleischman's advice in adding an option C. I see alternative proposals added to running RFCs all the time in an effort to reach consensus, but I don't see anything in WP:RFC about the exact procedure. Procedural guidance would be welcome. Eperoton (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support The term is defined abstractly, with no reference to Russia, in multiple dictionaries. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep option A. It is a lot more precise than option "C" and provides correct context because it mentioned "Western world". My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option B opening seems better, by giving the definition that it is a rhetorical technique (Distraction or Counter-accusation) first, and then conveying that the neologism or slang and recent awareness is linked to the "What about". verbal responses. mentioning the slang (Option C is close to that, but runs the Russians half into the first line -- would be better to make the second line "It is associated with when criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.") Counter-accusation is a rhetorical device not a propaganda device, and is not something originated or limited to Soviets, the Russian association is just given as where one author derived the phrase. Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Option C, but would prefer a slight rewording separating the proposed "which..." clause into a new main clause ("It was..."). The use by the Soviet Union is not a defining feature of what this technique supposedly is, even though it may have been the primary target against which the term was coined; hence it shouldn't be in the definition sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Option A or C, with preference to A Per the sources themselves, the term is about Soviet Russian propaganda. That is its definition and history. Option B both tries to push a claim about its origins that isn't supported by the sources and also appears to be purposefully biased and non-neutral in its wording, by making the summary be about "British and American media accusations". Silverseren^C 04:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C or another rewriting that mentions both issues and gives more prominence to Soviet era propaganda. (editor is a volunteer with Wikipedia:Feedback request service assigned this article more or less at random) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Option A - still doesn't comply with the bulk of reliable sources on the matter. Stickee (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Analysis section

The section called "Analysis" consists of a series of opinions, with precious little analysis of the term or its impact. It looks like editors performed a search for "whataboutism" in the press and proceeded to summarize every such article with In 2012, journalist X wrote in publication P that whataboutism was "an old Soviet trick". This collection of repetitive opinions is mostly superfluous, and certainly not an "analysis". I would suggest trimming 80% of it, and summarizing the general outline of opinions in solid prose. Individual sources can appear in references but don't need to be explicitly quoted. — JFG ^talk 06:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

References

I agree. That's what happened. It was a single editor who trawled the media and dropped the contents into the article. Condensing it would be good.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Eh, not so sure about your proposal. Most of the content is actually useful, but there's a little bit over quoting in that section. Stickee (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Useless infobox

The custom infobox in this article just repeats assertions made in the lede section and lists an arbitrary collection of uses of the deflection technique in recent political issues. I removed it and was reverted. Let's discuss and choose to keep or remove it. — JFG ^talk 16:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove – No editorial value. — JFG ^talk 16:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep I understand your concern. But it is another effective way to communicate to readers in a different format. I believe it has "editorial value." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep per WP:INFOBOX guideline. The purpose is to present a summary of the article's content in a brief manner. Stickee (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep as the infobox presents content in a summarized, easy-to-read form which many readers (including myself) find helpful. If you disagree with the content of the infobox, edit the content of the infobox instead of removing it entirely (I routinely edit things in infoboxes on other articles). A large percentage of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes and in pretty much all cases I think those infoboxes are very useful in understanding the content, and this article is no exception. --Yetisyny (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment It provides perspective, context and relevant links. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Remove - pointless and pointed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:INFOBOX guidelines.Casprings (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect classification of Whataboutism

Whataboutism refers to the iInformal logical fallacy Tu Quoque

The fallacy is only classified as Tu quoque if, and only if, these 3 criteria are met:

   1.Person A makes claim X.
   2.Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
   3.Therefore X is false.

Within this wiki, there are arguments incorrectly labeled as Whataboutism when it only fulfilled the first 2 criteria (pointing out the hipocrisy).

This is important because the 3rd part of the criteria is important, if they do not make the assertion that X is therefore false because of the last 2 criteria, than it is not Whataboutism, either that, or Whataboutism now has an alternate definition which is not a logical fallacy, and only amounts to pointing out hipocrisy's. (Which isn't a logical fallacy).

I'm new here, but if a "reliable source" outlet repeatedly and incorrectly classify Whataboutism is that "reliable source" still reliable?

Now, for some examples:

     National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "President Trump has developed a consistent tactic when he's criticized: say that someone else is worse."

Only first 2 criteria, if another person is indeed worse, that is only pointing out Hypocrisy, not "whataboutism" and should be removed under WP:BLPREMOVE or WP:NOR

    After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the U.S. government was also guilty of killing people.

Yet again, first 2 criteria, 3rd criteria unmet.

   NPR noted Trump chose to criticize the Affordable Care Act when he himself faced criticism over the proposed American Health Care Act of 2017, "Instead of giving a reasoned defense, he went for blunt offense, which is a hallmark of whataboutism."

Choosing to criticize the Affordable Care Act when facing criticism over American Health Care Act of 2017, is only a matter of pointing out hipocrisy, and it only meets the first 2 criteria, it does not meet the 3rd criteria.

   This block is correct... most of the examples of DJT's use of whataboutism are not actually whataboutism.  Additionally, comparisons to Putin are not relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.25.27 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC) 

This wiki needs some serious work. Here's an example of what an actual Tu quoque looks like:

   Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
   Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"[2] 

1st criteria (Person A makes claim X) is met by

    it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing

2nd criteria (Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X) is met by

    but you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand!

3rd criteria (Therefore X is false) is met by

    How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?

Policypolicy (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

I'll agree with this. Whataboutism is an argumentation technique of diverting attention or changing the subject, but it's not actually a logical fallacy. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This article cites RSs that identify whataboutism as a form of tu quoque and as a logical fallacy (e.g., Zimmer). Perhaps that's not a universally held view, but alternative views should be presented based on RSs about whataboutism rather than on WP:SYN. Also, be careful about relying on tu quoque, since that article is poorly sourced and not well developed. If you look at some academic discussions of tu quoque at Google Books, you'll see that there's more than one definition, and some of the distinctions are rather subtle. Eperoton (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a dilemma at the level of logic that the article does not address. In law, particularly international law, states are obliged to uphold the norms they demand of others. It is called the "clean hands doctrine." That can look like "whataboutery" when they are called out on their hypocrisy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.135 (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The differences in definition are minor, but regardless, none of them will elevate the above examples to a logical fallacy (still open to examples if you find them though). To solve this we need to either remove the logical fallacy classification and keep the "incorrectly classified" whataboutisms. Or remove the incorrect classifications. Or I'm missing other options, what should we do? Policypolicy (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

We should follow WP policies, which say that we need to reflect what WP:RSs say about the subject. One cited RS (Zimmer) says: "Whataboutism is another name for the logical fallacy of tu quoque", and there are others out there, so that particular view is well-sourced. If other RSs make different assertions about whataboutism, we should reflect them too. What we can't do, however, is compare definitions and examples found in different sources and determine ourselves whether the classification is correct or not. That would constitute a violation of WP policy, WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

"Whataboutism is another name for the logical fallacy of tu quoque". Yes, that's the current consensus, and it's well-sourced. That wasn't my concern, my concern is in the title of this section, the examples above are incorrectly classified as whataboutism. As with other parts of this wiki article. Policypolicy (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Policypolicy: Sorry, I didn't read what you wrote carefully enough. It sounds like you agree that the NPR piece classifies those examples as whataboutism and your concern is if a "reliable source" outlet repeatedly and incorrectly classify Whataboutism is that "reliable source" still reliable? If the question is stated in general terms (can a source be deemed unreliable based on consensus of WP editors about its content if it formally meets WP:RS criteria?), I don't think there's a general answer, because reliability depends on context. In this case, almost all of our sources come from journalists commenting on political discourse, and not from experts in rhetorical devices, and among them the NPR piece is not less reliable than the rest. I think the bottom line is, we don't have the sources to build a solid formal analysis of the things that people call whataboutism, and we can't do so through OR. The best we can do is reflect the current crop of reputable sources on the subject. Eperoton (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The difference between a problem (narrative) and a idea (philosophical fact) its that the first has to take in account morality, emotion, a the people involved, the second dos not, only to exemplify the trillions of possible outcomes compressed in percentages of possibility, with morality and emotion taking second seat to deduction and compromise. To the examples above:

  Peter: "Based on the arguments I have presented, it is evident that it is morally wrong to use animals for food or clothing."
  Bill: "But you are wearing a leather jacket and you have a roast beef sandwich in your hand! How can you say that using animals for food and clothing is wrong?"

True in this case a philosophical fact its combated by a narrative, and this should represent Whataboutism, but Whataboutism usually begins with a side damming another trough a narrative, and the other side points out another narrative, that should not be Whataboutism, or should not be viewed as bad in a logical argument. Example:

  USA : "...the civilians that died in military conflict..."
  Russia" "look what you! did, you had the same result"

There is no argument spelling: "should civilians die in military conflicts?", but a condemnation trough a incident (narrative).

drive-by commenter

i came to this page and discovered a classic disinformation tactic: the article whataboutism, in a sense, is essentially founded on THE SOVIETS DO THIS as its core. I am an educated and literate reader, a sometime editor, but i would vote for "anything but option A." I don't have the time or the standing to chase down the ref in the Economist or anywhere else. Choose to define the term and its origins, or choose to define the phenomenon itself and explain the origin of the term, but talking about the phrase in terms of English usage in ref to the Soviets is too gnarly for most readers, I should think. Many of us USians are interested in the use of the tactic of tu quoque by our current holders of high office and don't care a whit about plowing through the article's etymological persuasions with little promise of seeing how the TACTIC, not the term has found its place in right-wing US rhetoric. Sorry if this comment is offensive or useless. I would have preferred reliance on more analytical sources and fewer journalistic grabs. Actio (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. This article is highly problematic.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed as well, it could use a good overhaul. There is a lot of undue and coatrack stuff here. PackMecEng (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That you choose to not read the sources puts you at a disadvantage. Indeed, it calls into question your comments and their basis. 17:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7%266%3Dthirteen (talk • contribs)

Sorry must be over my head, what are you referring to exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

For a article about Whataboutism which proclaims to be "tu quoque logical fallacy", it lack the demonstration why is logical fallacy, I try to put a section in "Analysis" but it disappeared as soon as I put it, the section was: "===Arguing an Argument===

Please take note, for this to be a logical fallacy, the perpetrator of Whataboutism has to attack (whit a narrative) a philosophical fact not! a narrative, arguing a narrative with another narrative its a normal logical approach, the difference its in how the accuser of Whataboutism formed its accusation, citing "incidents", are just narratives, which can be emotional, but in a logical argument just part of possibility, proclaiming that incidents like that are bad could be a philosophical fact. The accused should realize that the accuser talks about Philosophy, and the accuser should notify in case the accused does not understand." I know its week in for of construction and explication, this is my forth language, but there has to be a demonstration of why is this a logical fallacy, because while this is used in politics for now, we could see it in public discussion, and it should be clear here on wiki what are the limitations and correct use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MIHIM2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Merge suggestion.

Over at the ...And you are lynching Negroes Talk Page, I suggested a merge with this article since both cover some of the same information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:And_you_are_lynching_Negroes#Merge? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually suggested the same thing on this talk page back in January of 2017. Bzzzing (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggested it previously too.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

As there seems to be confusion I'll try and help - The version here is disputed by one edit warrer who when reverted provided vague and rather unhelpful edit summaries,
4-5 editors have all reverted that one editor which to me would suggest the version linked above is absolutely fine and that those who object to the content should come here and discuss it. –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the disruptive section blanking a few times, but the US politicians section is too long and too focused on one politician per WP:UNDUE. It should consist of a few well-sourced examples of a few politicians. Happy to help with this, per consensus on its inclusion. Examples from countries other than Russia and the US are also needed. I can think of a few European politicans who engage in whataboutism fairly regularly. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if we should have any examples at all, besides a couple of them to help with defining the concept. We could write a full book just listing random occurrences of whataboutism in political or social discourse, going back to the great debaters of the Roman Senate. At any rate, focusing the examples on the current U.S. President smacks of unnecessary partisanship for an encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 01:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Usage by Israel

I have provided reliable sources about the usage of whataboutism by supporters of Israel (Hasan and Vally), which kept getting deleted on the accusations of WP:COATTRACK. This article seems to suggest that whataboutism is used exclusively by Russians, even though the fallacy of tu quoque dates back centuries. --60.242.159.224 (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that really complies with WP:DUE, as per reliable sources. An opinion blog entry, and a book titled "Solidarity With Palestine" don't even slightly close to meeting that. Stickee (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you could provide several examples from WP:RS of Israel supporters being accused of "whataboutism" or "tu quoque" arguments specifically, that would meet Wikipedia policies for inclusion and it should go into the article. I think that it should meet WP standards to find articles that use whataboutism without specifically using the word, but some people would object to that using WP:NOR. You could do that with a simple Google search for "israel and whataboutism", though you'd have to read the results to make sure they support your case. That would establish WP:DUE. For example https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/fact-check-why-israeli-un-envoy-s-speech-on-jerusalem-missed-the-mark-1.5629366 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/05/ehud-barak-the-full-transcript-216007 --Nbauman (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Repetitive article?

Is it just me, or is this article particularly repetitive with the same facts and examples appearing over and over again? JezGrove (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This article could probably lose a third of it's length without removing any actual unique information. Rosguill^talk 02:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

True, much of it consists of quotations making the same point.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think the "which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda" would be more fair adding "in/by the West" or something alike, for it is clear that these associations are anything but neutral. I'd suggest something in the line of:

"which is particularly associated in the West with Soviet and Russian propaganda"

It'd honour better the NPV wikipedia policy than the current reaction, as if such opinion were universal.

(See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.62.157.23 (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ultimately this should be decided by what's in reliable sources. It does appear, however, that the overwhelming majority of the citations are to Western media outlets, and particularly American ones at that, although there are a few citations to academic journals as well (although academia is not necessarily immune to Cold War bias). While there are a few Russian sources in this article's reference list, upon investigation they appear to be either funded by American sources like EurasiaNet (hosted at Columbia) or The Moscow Times, a free English-language publication with a circulation of a few tens of thousands. Additionally, it seems suspicious that the citations for the articles in Norwegian, Hebrew, Bahasa Indonesia, Japanese, Korean, Russian, French, Ukrainian, and Catalan are exclusively or near-exclusively in English. (Dutch and Sardu have no sources, Arabic cites English Wikipedia). The only non-English languages articles with multiple non-English language sources are German (which still has majority English) and Italian, which gives a completely different treatment of the topic that does not mention Russia or Cold War politics. _signed, Rosguill^talk 06:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Obvious Political Bias in Article

This article contains obvious political bias, which substantially harms the credibility of Wikipedia. Left-wing media is linking to this article, spreading news of Wikipedia's political agenda; and, editors of this page appear to be political operatives, who are engaging in constant edit warring to maintain the article's obvious political slant. If the Wikipedia community is unable to remedy obvious political slant within its articles, then it is manifestly an unsuitable replacement for professionally edited encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica. It would be good to remind the Wikipedia editors and moderators that this resource is far from established as an academically acceptable citation, and that the behavior of its editors and moderators is worsening rather than improving the esteem of Wikipedia, it is endangering Wikipdia's promise as a joint project of human knowledge, and it is childishly shameful. Grow up and learn to write politically neutral articles or find another way to spend your time online without sullying Wikipedia.

Edit reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikii6B (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, you're just removing well sourced material and justifying it with a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree there are some concerns with this article. However, it's not worth my time to argue with somebody (Wikii6B) who is edit-warring to push their own POV instead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no interest in discussing and fixing this legitimate issue with the article? Claiming “soapbox” to shut another editor down falls far short of a reasoned conversation. Maricotes (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you evading your block ?, We can all agree the article or certainly that section needs improving however I would rather it was done by a respected editor not by a sock. –Davey2010^Talk 23:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a long history of people complaining about the political bias of this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Who? So far, only a couple of sockpuppet accounts listed above (some of which have already been blocked for repeatedly engaging in disruptive edits) have made dubious claims of political bias within this article. If you feel that the article could present a more balanced POV, then by all means feel free to make constructive edits to that end. Recklessly deleting appropriately sourced content, persistent edit-warring and adding un- (or inappropriately-)sourced content are not examples of constructive editing. 75.63.209.97 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

And the article has just got another POV tag.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)