Talk:Epistemic democracy

++

Edit summary and un-cited information
To the editor that removed tags from this article about sourcing and other issues and does not use an edit summary, we have a problem. Make an argument for your edits here before returning 'see also' information also and other information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What?
I am a well educated person with a very good understanding of English, and a long-standing interest in politics and political theory, and this article is incomprehensible. I've read it twice, and I still don't understand what "Epistemic democracy" is or how it differs from other democracies or why it differs or even if it differs. Assuming it is notable, and not a neologism, I think you need to delete all of it and start over. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I did put a definition of what it is in the definition section toward the top that is sourced and seems sort of comprehensible. As for the rest of it it seems really confusing and mostly O.r. strung together. For sure need the two tags on it that were removed recently. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * So the first thing to do would be to rename it to "Epistemic theory of democracy" or "Epistemic democracy theory" or something. Because the definition is definitely not a type of democracy. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Or hang on, maybe this is a variation of aggregative democracy? In that case perhaps an Aggregative democracy article should be created, and this merged there. There is a Radical democracy and a Deliberative democracy already. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)