The point is, _you probably don't need to_. If your opinion is firmly founded on facts, there's no need to state it at all. You don't need to spell it out for the reader. You can just say "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man," and leave it at that. Sidestep the issue by stating the facts _without_ explicitly stating my interpretation. Pick a couple of the best or most-respected journals, or the articles that state opinion A in the flattest and most succinct way. In the article, put "According to [bigshot author] in [leading journal] says 'A is absolutely correct because blah blah,' while [distinguished writer] in [respected journal] says 'Because of compelling reasons yada yada, A is correct.'" In the footnote, after citing the sources actually quoted, if you think it is important you could add "other sources with similar opinions are" and cite and quote a couple more of the best. I think you can document my borderline-original-research on the Talk page, saying I found these twenty references or whatever, because I believe it's perfectly OK to present original research on Talk pages in hopes of influencing other editors' behavior. Don't try to keep opinion B out of the article if it's sourced. If the legal community thinks opinion B is bizarre, though, by all means find someone who says so and cite and quote them. For a recent concrete example... so recent that my success or failure isn't clear yet... although looking at my interactions with another editor I think it's going to stick... in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing I had written "The term was popularized by the controversial psychiatrist Margaret Singer." An editor objected to the word "controversial." So, I changed the sentence to "The term was popularized by the clinical psychologist Margaret Singer, who has become closely identified with the love-bombing-as-brainwashing point of view." And I added a source citation, and a quotation, in a footnote, reading, ""One particular California psychologist, Margaret Singer, has been involved in offering testimony supporting cult brainwashing theories in over 40 such cases.... Such testimony, even though apparently effective, has drawn the ire of some scholar studying newer religions. These scholars claimed that such testimony should be disallowed because itdoes not represent a consensus position of scholars in the relevant fields of study, and it disregards considerable evidence that participation is virtually always a volitional act." You see the point? Is Singer "controversial?" Instead of drawing that conclusion for the reader, I briefly state a fact which explains why she _might_ be controversial, and back it up with a source citation and a quote so that anyone can judge whether my brief statement is a fair statement of the gist of the source.