Talk:Democratic deficit

message: An anonymous user added this link to several different EU pages today: . I removed it from the European Constitution page since it doesn't belong there. It might belong here since its topic is apparently the EU's democratic deficit, but I'm not sure. It's a paper by a German pressure group calling itself Mehr Demokratie ('more democracy'). It is heavily eurosceptic, but it seems measured. While Wikipedia is not a links repository, I'm not sure if it might be of interest to readers of this article. What do others think? Wombat 19:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to German eurosceptic article 

message: Only one side of the debate is presented in the United Kingdom section. Tim! 10:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: This section doesn't really appear to have anything to do with the article. I think it really should be removed until it can be replaced with more specific information on democratic deficit in the United Kingdom, or at least an explanation of how devolution and the concept of democratic deficit are linked. --Pappa 14:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom - Devolution 

message: This artical has taken a very indepth POV towards the EU then the title of the artical would suggest fair. It should either have the EU section given its own artical or have the content trimed down some. The term is used in Canada and perhaps other countries and this artical should reflect that. I'll try to add the appropraite information when I have more time. If a concensus can be reached on what to do with the EU section, that would be great. --Wilson (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus 

message: The "European Union" section is packed full of weasel words:
*"Those who argue"
*"Many eurosceptics argue"
*"detractors say"
*"Critics of the democratic legitimacy of the EU"
*"many would argue"
*"some commentators" (twice!)
Who are these people, and when and where did they say these things? Hairy Dude (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Shall we not redirect this page to the more correct "democracy deficit" (and rewrite it to take into account the change)? Or should we also change the "Music theory" page to "Musical theory", and the like? Both terms are in use, so we might as well choose the one that's correct. PeterH2 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct English 

message: I don't know which is better. Democracy Deficit is better English - but no one in the world, neither media nor scholars, talk about a "democracy deficit". The term which everyone is using is "democratic deficit". I don't know if Wikipedia is the place to try and change that. 
--QuotationMan (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If usage is democratic deficit, then we should leave it the way it is. (But OUCH! :) ) PeterH2 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both terms are widely used, but democratic deficit (which, yes, is not very good English) is more widely used. I would have no objections to changing the page title, but since democratic deficit is more widely used, it should probably remain as it is. Samuel Webster (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct English 

message: The article refers to him as coining the phrase in 1986.  According to the Democratic Deficit in the EU wiki page, it was coined as early as 1979.  I copied text (with two citations) from there to this article, removing the passage about Bill Newton Dunn's use of the word in 1986.  If his use of the phrase is still noteworthy, it could be re-worded and re-inserted.  Below is a link to the diff of my edit. -Ich (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Newton Dunn 

message: This article suffers from a lot of original Research.  Rather than explaining the concept of "Democratic deficit", it spends a great deal of time providing examples that have been personally selected by editors without any supporting cite identifying them as a Democratic deficit.
I think examples of "Democratic deficit" will invariably be matters of opinion, but at least we should make them the opinion of reliable sources and recognised authorities. We also don't really need so many examples in order for the reader to understand the concept.  The unsupported examples should be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research