Talk:Epistemic injustice

red links in the See Also section
I recently removed the red links from the See Also section. Red links detract from the quality of an article, and, especially in a See Also, they encourage the addition of non-notable additions to it. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor reverted my edit, leaving the edit summary, "Let's put those red links back. It's good to have a nudge to create those articles. MOS:SEEALSO is a helpful guideline, not an exceptionless rule, and in this case I think making an exception improves the article and helps readers find valuable information." I disagree that this "helps readers find valuable information"; red links have no notability check associated with them. Further, one can make the "nudge" argument for red links everywhere, so this is not a sufficient argument for including them here (else MOS:SEEALSO would not say that red links should not be in See Also sections). I do not agree that this article is so special that there should be an exception to this guideline. Anyone care to discuss this here? Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy in the lede
Firstly, why on earth would you call my edit unconstructive and suggest, on my talk page, that I use the sandbox to play around? I gave a very clear and logical explanation for my edit. You gave no explanation for your revert. Please assume good faith, even with anonymous editors.

Secondly, the content in the lede stating potential precursors is not essential information and it is nearly verbatim with content in the origins section. It should therefore be removed as unnecessary and redundant. -- 129.242.129.238 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted my edit. I think I must have misread your change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)