don this is classic you wrote pounds of stuff took off in a tangent and didn't even answer my question under discussion requiring no more than a simple yes no objective response then you went ahead and reversed my deletion in the article without discussing it here please get consensus before making any article changes i took a closer look at your source for the under thing and found a few issues it is a paid report costing to access how can any editor verify that you aren't making bogus claims this article seems to be referring to meditation in general and not sahaj marg so it's not relevant to this discussion you may want to place it in the meditation article it is speaking of the inappropriateness of meditation from a pediatric standpoint supposedly i haven't read it the wiki article on pediatrics says that this science is relevant to children up to to of age so how is this specifically relevant to the years of age point under discussion here if you want to put in a criticism of sahaj marg making younger children meditate don't hide it in an irrelevant footnote finally the sentence sahaj marg guru recommends a minimum age of before beginning the practice of meditation implying this technique is not suitable for younger people is your extrapolation of the motivations for the srcm rules i e original research not admissible i will be removing the implying this technique is not suitable for younger people part please try to be brief objective and to the point in your response