| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tu quoque article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Unsure about source 3
editSource 3 is a Medium article written by a computer scientist; while I see its value as an opposition position, I don't know if it constitutes the broadly phrased "critics say". I'm legitimately uncertain if this constitutes a problem, it just feels odd; I at least wanted to see if someone else had input. ReeceGames (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ReeceGames I think this counts as a weasel word. One person is criticising, not "critics". I'm personally unsure of how to fix it, but I agree with your sentiment. —Panamitsu (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)