wikipedia is not a court hearing transcript well this directly contradicts wikipedia policy itself where when reputable sources contradict one another then you are required to present the differing viewpoints with clarity if this turns out to be like a 'court hearing transcript' transcript so be it but you are misunderstanding my use of 'he says' we don't need to specifically do that if the context makes it clear anyway npov weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence however when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence the core of the npov policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page work for balance that is describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources and give precedence to those sources that are most reliable and verifiable i have a suggestion i'll write the ernst and al viewpoint and you do the other i can do mine first