Talk:Sociological aspects of secrecy

I've tagged the section Sociological aspects of secrecy#Behind closed doors as confusing. I haven't checked if the original text has been corrupted or if it has been like this ever since it was written. The sentences are disjunctive and replete with ambiguity to the extent that what they intend to impart to the reader becomes substantially lost. __meco (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Agree. The text here is a faithful representation of Hornstein's 1906 Psych. Bulletin review of Simmel's work (or at any rate, what's made it online); but that review is simply awful! I'd like to check the paper version, but the local holding only goes back to 1921. LaFolleCycliste 06:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFolleCycliste (talk • contribs)

Ah, I see I have been clicking on the wrong 'talk' link and that the discussion needs to happen here. Are we in consensus that the changes I have made in the most recent version of those changes is acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociological_aspects_of_secrecy&oldid=1111537228