DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Trang chủ
  2. Wiki
Former good article nomineeWhataboutism was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 22, 2015Articles for deletionKept
October 30, 2015Deletion reviewEndorsed
February 4, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
June 24, 2017WikiProject approved revisionDiff to current version
July 11, 2017Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
July 19, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

China section

[edit]

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

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

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

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

I would remove that wikilink but the article is locked 73.202.95.43 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I may be misunderstanding, but the read-more-link in that section is not a link to Category:Human rights abuses in the United States, but a link to an article about a document that the Chinese government publishes that does exactly what is described. (Propaganda, in this case contraganda at the US' expense) The title of this document (and of the article about it) is Human Rights Record of the United States.
I think that this article, being mostly a discussion of that document, makes sense to have as context so people can read more about the kind of (and examples of) whataboutism the PRC does? Slomo666 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Presentation

[edit]

The structural context of whataboutism is completely missing in the article. The (fallacious) tu quoque argument follows the template (i.e. pattern):[2] Person A claims that statement X is true. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore, X is false.

The article disregards that statement X has to be built on a set of values and it's own justification. If that criteria is not met then any and everything is whataboutism. Feminism is whataboutism cause you cant "what about men". BLM is whataboutism cause you cant "what about white people". Racism as a whole is whataboutism because you cant point at any other race and ask "what about them".

Within this context, if Person A proposes a set of values (i.e. X is bad) but they themselves actively engage in X as well, then you have a situation in which Person A can only make this argument when they proclaim themselves to be also bad. If this criteria is not met and Person A attempts to levy X against person B then at best you have a double standard at your hands, at worst a completely nonsensical deflection.

As the article states under DEFLECTION, whataboutism is often used to try and deflect away the values set by X. If you are honest about your statement then by definition you agree with the set of values you have proposed, i.e.: - Invading sovereign countries is bad. - Distinguishing between people based on immutable characteristics is bad. If you invade sovereign countries yourselves, if you distinguish people based on immutable characteristics yourselves, then what value set are you appealing to when you bring these up as something bad? This is not an adhominem attack. If you want to set up a set of values under claim X then those need to be consistent. If they arent, then you are simply pulling things up from thin air. 2A02:AB88:D8C:7380:C18B:BB82:1916:208 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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


MSNBC is a reliable source for wikipedia. Meanwhile they are only a source based on opinion. Maybe read a history book some time. What is stated is true. Commiting war crimes, and then crying when the opposing side does the same thing, but silencing the other side when they bring up the war crimes you commited, is deflection when theyre using the word whataboutism. Im seriously worried for the west right now. 2001:56A:734C:DF00:E44D:A684:F113:E73A (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the published analysis is so weak as to be absurd a discussion should be valid as to whether the given source is just garbage on the subject. "Whataboutism" is generally referred to as a logical fallacy by the fact it doesn't address the stated point in formal deductive logic but the actual accusation of "whataboutism" is generally used to deflect from questioning the truth of unstated value premises by contradiction. If I say, "You should be killed as a liar for saying the Earth is round," whether or not the rebuttal is fallacious shouldn't hinge on you arguing solely why you *shouldn't* be killed for lying that the Earth is round. You should be able to argue both that you're not lying *AND* that even if you're lying I appear to be engaged in a double standard as you give examples where I accept or even promote falsehoods myself without triggering the death sentence response. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition; to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” The cry of "Whataboutism" should not be a conservative's shield as he wantonly flings shit at the outgroup attempting to bind them to one side of his moral double standards while he remains protected from return criticism illuminating that he uses a completely different standard when judging the ingroup which avoids being bound. The contradiction between the two sides of his moral standard proves that he is not using an objective moral standard. It isn't logically fallacious to go digging at unstated premises or continuations. Tu quoque is only a fallacy in narrow terms: "I propose that doing X is bad." | "You do X, therefore X is not bad." This is fallacious in formal logic as he may be doing a 'bad thing' in doing X so his doing X doesn't actually address whether X is bad. However, if we extend the claim to also be one of an accusation against another we change the situation: "X is bad. X is objectively bad. Those who do objectively bad things should be punished. You do X. Therefore you should be punished for doing X. Therefore as an avenging angel of objective morality I am morally just in punishing you for doing X." At this point pointing out that the accuser also does X and does not punish himself for doing X undoes his argument that he is an avenging angel of objective morality. (Whether or not it may be formally true that X is bad may be ignored if the opponent only cares about the last conclusion which is the one that effects consequences for it being true. The accuser is uncovered to be a Nazi if he persists in trying to enforce a set of biased subjective standards which holds himself to the supreme judge of all.) Pointing out double standards logically shouldn't fall under a term that is labeled a fallacy as it is not fallacious, and any source that cannot distinguish between pointing out the second side of a double standard when moral consequences are attempting to be justified and the Tu Quoque fallacy should be considered to be unreliable in the field of logic. 2601:19E:4280:5853:61DE:7813:FC10:D6BE (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find a wp:Reliable source to support the statement "The article disregards that statement X has to be built on a set of values and it's own justification." And then add that statement and its source to the article. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft-ish article

[edit]

Current article is kinda busy listing who pulled out a whatty, but fails to be transparent on what the whatty, whataboutism per se, is. "Use in political contexts" section as well as "Analysis" sections smell of WP:Listcruft all while "In proverbs and similes" list is only represented with two Biblical verses and one proverb. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Have you considered editing the article to make it less listcrufty? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi

[edit]

Does this fallacy not fall under Ignoratio elenchi? I see it classed under ad-hominem or tu-quoque type fallacies/arguments, but is whataboutism (at least the way it is used, like "what about [insert irrelevant atrocity]?" when discussing/condemning another (current) (potentially similar) atrocity.) not more an (non)argument aimed at misdirection rather than on personal attack? Slomo666 (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be clear, my point is that Tu Quoque/ad hominem are aimed at the opponent specifically, and their hypocrisy/immorality, whereas "Whatabout?" is not about the opponent. (It can be, as in the cited case about warring factions referring to each other's actions, but the aim here would not be to discredit the opponent, (ad hominem) but to deflect. The overlap with Tu Quoque makes (some) sense as such a whataboutism can be aimed at (fallaciously) justifying the condemned action/attribute. It does not have to be, however.)
Whataboutism is specifically about the thing that is being condemned, and either a justification through comparison or a misdirection (also by comparison with unrelated things, as in I. E. ).
Slomo666 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

>Sorry to be clear, my point is that Tu Quoque/ad hominem are aimed at the opponent specifically

Look, I may sound WP:RS or WP:FORUM, but here's what I have. Here's an example: "what about..." was a rather powerful move of my rude neighbour. I was complaining how loud clanging of glass jars keeps me awake at 12 AM and instead of, say, "ugh, get me a nice bucket then" I got this "what about your beeps?". Boom. Discussion went from seeking a solution for loud clangs straight up to an invitation to a proud neughbour stand-off. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those cases of overlap. It is both an attempt to delegitimise your criticism by accusing you of hypocrisy, or to legitimise the jar clanging by mentioning their grievance about the beeps. (“If I have to suffer through the beeps, you must deal with the clanging”) Slomo666 (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a hindsight, though, could have reached my neighbour via housechat and offered to replace my alarm clokky with a quieter one (say, a timer-activated light without sounds altogether) in exchange for swapping that clangy glass jar with a set of plastic cups. IMO. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about other logical fallacys

[edit]

Aren't they bad as well?????? SoThisIsPeter (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They are covered in their own articles. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this different from Tu quoque?

[edit]

From the article we can learn

> From a logical and argumentative point of view, whataboutism is considered a variant of the "tu quoque" pattern, which is a subtype of the ad hominem style of argument.

but how is it different from tu quoque? Could someone explain? If we consider that we have a separate article for tu quoque defense, it seems we now have three articles on the same topic. All of these could be merged. Orubblig (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because in "Tu quoque" (you too) the accusation is more directly related to the argument at hand - Person A might say "smoking is bad" and Person B says "well you must not really believe that because you smoke". Whereas a whataboutism style strategy Person B might say something like "well you binge drink alcohol every week and that's bad too". Notice how this counter accusation doesn't necessarily imply that smoking isn't bad it's more of a distraction from the original premise and also perhaps stating that Person A can't criticize Person B's actions/choices without being flawless in ways unrelated to what they are talking about. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This was the best explanation I have seen and I hadn't thought about that. Could we add something similar in the article?
I tried to find sources that agree with this explanation, but I find most of the sources to be as vague as the current article is. Could we just add it ourselves?
I am however a bit worried that this is only one definition of whataboutism. That some just use as more an informal version of tu quoque or that it is tu quoque for stricly political topics.
Not sure how to solve this. Orubblig (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put your question to Google AI. It replied:

AI Overview

Whataboutism is a specific type of

Tu Quoque fallacy, differing mainly in its broad political scope and tendency to deflect by introducing a new, often unrelated, issue ("What about them?") rather than just pointing out hypocrisy on the same issue ("You do it too!"). While Tu Quoque attacks a critic's hypocrisy (e.g., "You smoke, so you can't tell me not to"), Whataboutism deflects by changing the subject to another perceived wrongdoing by the accuser's side (e.g., "You criticize our human rights, but what about your country's record?"). Tu Quoque Fallacy (You Too!)

Definition: An argument that attempts to discredit an opponent's claim by pointing out their own hypocrisy or inconsistency, saying they do the same thing they criticize. Focus: Directly addresses the accuser's actions related to the same criticism. Example: "You tell me not to speed, but you got a speeding ticket last year!".

Whataboutism (What About?)

Definition: A specific tactic, often political, that deflects criticism by responding with a counter-accusation about a different, often unrelated, issue. Focus: Shifts the conversation to a new "what about" topic, creating a red herring. Example: "You're concerned about our human rights record? Well, what about the human rights abuses in your country?".

Key Differences Summarized

Scope: Tu Quoque is a general fallacy about hypocrisy; Whataboutism is a specialized political tactic. Mechanism: Tu Quoque says "You're a hypocrite on this"; Whataboutism says "But what about something else?".

Relationship: Whataboutism uses Tu Quoque as a foundation but expands it into a broader deflection, often introducing new subjects.

I agree with them. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:37, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]