reverts back to old original profile i have had a think about this since my last comment your assumption is that any editor that tries to enter an opposite viewpoint to that of tm is somehow also being disruptive and difficult this is far from the case although this is how it might seem without deep analysis looking at the last days for example myself and other what you might describe as anti pov editors have following discussion allowed two pro tm edits to be allowed back into the article despite the fact they may not be resource compliant or npov see for example orm johnson on cults where i made the revert also notice that anti editors have disagreed over the wording of so called anti tm sources meaning that they became more neutral in tone see physiology section however this has not been the case with other pro editors what this means is that another editors even neutral ones come across as seeming otherwise where different points of view exists this must be cited in the article this is the nature of an encyclopaedia and has been since the first one complied in the enlightenment you are also correct that other factors of the tm organisation do indeed need discussion however to me the most important is the research this is because reading this article one would assume that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that tm meditation or indeed any meditation has large and demonstrate health benefits including increasing your life expectancy curing cancer and prevent coronary disease however this is clearly not the case i understand that as webmaster to nsr and thank you for the honesty of at least adding this to your profile this maybe difficult to believe as your much cheaper form of mediation relies on the research of tm to promote it but the research that supports such findings is blatant nonsense and no such agreement exits within the scientific community this needs to be highlighted i am afraid however the tm organisation will try anything to deny this