Talk:Essentially contested concept

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Social and political / Religion B‑class Low‑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

B

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of religion

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Legibility

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]