Talk:Essentially contested concept

Lindsay658, master of disguise

Inserted new "Concepts/notions vs. conceptions/instantiations" from 129.94.6.28 (I forgot to log in) Lindsay658 07:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Made last edit from 129.94.6.30, forgetting to log in (again!!!). Sorry to confuse things Lindsay658 08:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I have reverted the previous change made by 66.30.181.33 because, regardless of what he/she may think of what was said, the text is a direct quotation -- and, therefore, must remain in its correct form.Lindsay658 07:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody write references in normal way? This is difficult to understand. --147.251.103.20 (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Great 👍🏻 116.204.242.30 (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Legibility

As currently written, this article's prose is unusually difficult to parse. See WP:MODERNLANG. Lunaroxas (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a minimally useful report as written. Could you point to specific examples of the issue? Remsense ‥ 论 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I simplified the lead since it was too abstract and incomprehensible. I added some sources to help clarify what this means. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a massive improvement. Thank you.

Apologies, @Remsense, for not responding earlier. My principal issue was not only with the introduction, but the Features subsection. The article, as previously written, nested speaking footnotes as citations, omitting a crucial sentence that introduced the elaborations upon Gallie's original definition. I've gone ahead and cleaned up the language to clearly indicate the sentence is announcing the beginning of a list of elements. Lunaroxas (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)