David Gerard wrote:
Explain NPOV in a sentence. Two sentences if you have to.
For even the most controversial subjects, Wikipedia strives to construct a single description which partisans on all sides can agree with. Such a "neutral point of view" description involves a certain amount of compromise, but more importantly, it requires stripping the discussion of hyperbole, speculation, and judgemental tone, and instead confining the discussion to something approximating objective truth.
This has a couple of problems, but it might be a decent starting point.
1. The words "description" and "discussion" are repeated and not quite right.
2. The last four words are a bit too grandiose, and will invite especial criticism from moral relativists who believe there's no such thing as objective truth. I'd originally written "...confining the discussion to well-sourced facts", but that's weak, and invites a different sort of debate since our verifiability policies, though important, are problematic.