[WikiEN-l] Challenge: explain NPOV in a sentence.

[Steve Summit]

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.