Hm, in general I think this page is kind of confusing. I think it could be worded better - perhaps the original author would like to take another whack at it? I had to read through a couple of times to see what he was getting at. I think that the problem is that it's not clear who he's criticising. Terms like "NPOV crusader" aren't very encyclopaedic. The point may be valid but I think there's a more academic way of saying it.

Who is "I" here, as in "what I call the flat earth problem"? Jimbo Wales? (This is linked from a quotation of one of Wales's posts, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_Weight)

Should the "I" stay here? Maybe the whole page should read, "Jimbo Wales said: [what he said]", or the "see Flat earth problem" should be clearly separated from the Wales quote.

GW = Guild Wars? 2005-06-05

Based on the edit history, the "I" here is entirely fictitious. I suggest replacement such as "... is sometimes called the 'flat-Earth Problem'".

Also, the first sentence is grammatically incorrect. Perhaps: "The term 'flat-Earth problem' refers to the cognitive dissonance and incredulity which arise when..." The current phrasing says that the incredulity IS the problem -- which doesn't seem quite right to me. :)

This page is confusing and, imho, stupid. Paul 21:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I didn't understand what this is trying to convey. What does "POV pushers don't have this problem; they cause it!" mean? Who are "POV pushers"? Who are "NPOV crusaders"? This definitely needs a rewording. --Kprateek88(Talk | Contribs) 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is hard to follow. The real problem is that there isn't a clear definition in Wiki of the difference between a "significant minority" with prominant people supporting the viewpoint and "very tiny" minority.
It says "...It gets worse when there are disputes which have less than a 99.99% consensus. 95% is enough, as in evolution. It's even less for global warming...". So, the real problem for editors is "What percentage of minority is too low of a percentage to include on the main article?"
I am having trouble finding the answer to this. When I add alternate viewpoints to scientific articles, the viewpoints may be gaining momentum in the scientific community, and so by their nature have small percentages of those that have even read the source. So, what percentage of the scientists must read a source and agree with it before the source can be used to verify a viewpoint?D c weber (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is basically one of censorship at Wikipedia. Some people, who are pushing a viewpoint, will declare that it is "mainstream" or that there is a "consensus" in favor of it. On that basis, they say that other viewpoints should not be described, on the grounds that this gives them too much coverage. They imply that giving too much coverage of a minority viewpoint would mislead our readers into thinking that it has more support than it really does. This concept is called "undue weight".

I think this is just an excuse to promote one POV at the expense of another, and that it violates NPOV. The arbcom disagrees and has placed severe sanctions on me as a result.

Perhaps in the future, if enough contributors wish it, we will return to the original NPOV rule which requires us to say of each viewpoint merely that A says B about C. The issue of how many people support that viewpoint should be described, if there is the slightest doubt.

In a few special cases, such evolution vs. intelligent design, and the global warming controversy, supporters of one viewpoint have asserted that there is no opposition to speak of. This is insanely ludicrous, considering the hundreds of books on the evolution controversy, and the dozens of books on global warming. Whether the disputes are entirely scientific or partly political, Wikipedia should cover them - without bias. Someday, perhaps, this will happen. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]