`  :: ===If you feel this way, please be specific where this reads as advertising===  I noticed what followed in that objectional paragraph (that has been changed)that shows a professional concern by those in the field for representing their livelihood adequately - perhaps this was the offending ``sell.`` It's a concern that AT teachers want the public to get this information about AT from a brand-name, properly trained AT teacher - sort of additude. I agree this is an opinion or fear among the UK preservationists of F.M. Alexander's work that doesn't belong in this article and it's been removed. (In fact, the AT preservations endorsed this article that was written by a non-member of theirs or any affiliate club.)   I also combed through it and removed superlatives, etc. and other possibly offending characteristics. After I removed the ``offending`` parts, I took out the ``reads like an ad`` icon. Then someone re-marked the article again as advertising. Why? Did they even notice that the article had been changed? I guess it only takes one person to have an objection, and once someone focuses on a characteristic it becomes magnified by the fact they are watching for it.  In fact, unlike chiropractice which contains some of the most aggressive selling techinques anywhere, the field of AT is marked by a lack of advertising, with AT teachers usually getting their students solely by personal contact and word of mouth.  In fear that a reader might conclude that an entire of field of study is a ``sham`` without trying a lesson obviously led someone else in the AT field to add the list of famous people who are or have been students of AT. Perhaps it is this list that continues the make the article seem to read as if it's an ad?  I'm taking off the ``ad`` icon again. Please talk about where you feel this ad alert should be on if you put it back and I'll be happy to edit the offending parts.    :The entire article.  I'm not stating that it is an ad or is promotional (though I think both), but that the wording is not encyclopedic, and does not present a neutral point of view.    :: If you can specify another way that I can explain what AT is, without leaving out parts of it, in a NPOV way - please let's do that. I have deleted superlatives; I have assigned personal descriptions of ``effects`` to the proponents; someone else has offered documented research and cited sources. I'm not sure what else I can do to improve this article...I guess I'll just have to read the NPOV again and see if there is something I could still do for it.  Please, someone who is better at using NPOV, just take out or rewrite the offending language that you believe is at fault and replace it with more neutral wording! I'll be happy to then correct any inherent misconceptions that are in conflict with Alexander's work that pop up in the ``translation`` process. I guess I could ask some published authors on AT who are my colleagues to improve this for NPOV, but only a stub existed here before I wrote for it.  I'll see what I can do.  `