`   :::::: I understand your point but   Undue weight Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail). Needless to say that since a point of view appears in a decent mainstream journal is not fringe anymore.   For instance look how the American M Association speaks of homeopathy the efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven. Some think it a placebo effect, augmented by the concern expressed by the healer; others propose new theories based on quantum mechanics and electromagnetic energy. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/about-ama/13638.shtml  Or how look how BBC covers the Shang meta-analysis: Among other comments the article ends like that: A spokeswoman from the Society of Homeopaths  said: ``Many previous studies have demonstrated that homeopathy has an effect over and above placebo.``It has been established beyond doubt and accepted by many researchers, that the placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial is not a fitting research tool with which to test homeopathy.`` http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4183916.stm  Are these sources fringe or do they favor homeopathy?Regards.  `