==Emotional arguments== 
 I have reverted the blanking of this page; that is not acceptable behavior. 

 There are two points of view here that are clashing, and editors on each side who have an emotional stake in their views.  The goal of Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view, and to present verifiable information, not opinion or original research.  The fact that there are multiple methodologies in the point shooting world should be sufficient proof to show that it is not an exact science, but rather a still evolving case of picking the right compromise between training vs. reactions to stress, speed vs. accuracy, and effectiveness of technique vs. ease of training.  I would like to beleive that I don't have an emotional investment in any particular school.  I have never receieved formal training in any methods, I just realized that when I'm under stress, I do focus on the target, and the sights may as well not exist.  I then ran across articles about Rex Applegate's push to move police training away from "The Modern Technique", because it wasn't working (how often do you hear "over 30 rounds fired, no injuries" about police shootings?) and back to point shooting.  I tracked down a copy of FMFRP 12-80 and read it, and it made an impression on me, because what Applegate was describing was what I had foundunder stress, you focus on the target, and using the sights is unnatural.  This was several years ago, and when I created this article the only two methods I knew about were FSA and QuickKill (which I ran across on an airgun forum). 

 John is in the position of underdog here; you hold the least popular view.  That does not make his views invalid, I do think that they deserve a place in this article.  I do not personally object to links to his website, because his website does have a significant amount of information on many different types of pointshooting.  I would, however, prefer that the links be to pages with information, not to pages with commercial offers.  I'm not certain about "official" policy here, but this is the practice that I have seen. 

 As for removal of statements whose veracity is disputed; any statements made on Wikipedia should be verifiable by readily available, reputable external sources.  When a claim is made "X is Y", and there is dispute over the reliability of that statement, then it is probably best to say that "Z claims that X is Y".  This makes clear the source of the disputed claim "X is Y", and should keep others from objecting to the veracity of the statement.  Of course, if you state "Z claims that X is Y" then that should also be verifiable.  Again, John is in the position of being a person who has done original research, so maybe that does put a bit more of a burden of proof on him.  He does, however, have a patent, and since that is in essence a publication, I think that referring to that patent as the basis for statements made in the article would be acceptable.  I think everyone should read Wikipedia:Verifiability, but here's the short version: 

 :1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 
 :2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 
 :3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. 

 And I would challenge John to point to statements in other sections that he considers opinion stated as facthe's not the only one under a burden to prove their statements.  While I don't have an emotional investment in any particular type of point shooting, I do have some investment in this article, as I created it and wrote the original content.  I can't claim ownership of it, anything that goes into Wikipeida is owned by the community, not the creator, but I do have an attachment to the article and would like to see it grow into a good, complete article that everyone can be satisfied with.