Talk:Tu quoque

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Philosophy: Logic Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Unsure about source 3[edit]

Source 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]