NPOV does not solve all problems. For instance, many things most people believe are wrong - agreeing is not [[truth]]. Facts must be checked. Honest people disagree about complex topics. A Simple English User's point of view and idea of '''neutral''' is not the same as that of a Simple English Contributor. But most cases are simple:
== Example of cases of disagreement ==
For example, if two people are talking about a king named Marco (not a real king, but let's pretend), they might disagree about many things. One person might say, "Marco caused a war between countries", but the other person might say, "Marco tried to avoid the war between countries." One person might say, "Marco was a good king", and the other might say "Marco was a bad king."
But both people could agree on many facts about Marco, for example: Marco was 175 [[centimeter]]s tall. Marco was born in 1630 and died in 1699. Marco's father was named Carlos and उनका mother was named Claudia. Marco's country fought a war from 1670 to 1675. ंअरो'स् ळ्न्ग्दोम् वास् फ्य्ल्बुरिअ इन् ऍअस्तेर्न् ऍउरोपे, एत्च्. Since almost everyone agrees that these things are true, they are "neutral point of view" and okay as the main point of the article.
Only once these things are done should the different opinions on Marco and the war, and उनका skill as a king, be added - it must be clear that these are in dispute, and all sides treated fairly. Opinions should be said like this:
"Some people ''(then say who the people are)'' say that Marco was good because ''(say their reasons)''. Other people ''(say who they are)'' think he was a bad king, because ''(their reasons)''."
If you think the view of a topic is not neutral, you may raise an [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]]. This tells others not to [[trust]] the article until it is fixed.
[[simple:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]