I have no authority to warn anyone that is greater than any other editor.  However, I should remind everyone that in addition to the mentioned guideline, it would be a good idea to read the wikipedia guideline that we are to assume good faith WP:GOODFAITH. 

 Broncosfan74 has raised some good points, and I generally agree with.  However, it is important to remember that articles should represent a neutral point of view for which there is a consensus.  This is why there has been so much argumentation (on some level it's better than an edit war). 

 So, the editors on this page need to reach a conclusion.  Are we going to be critical of the claims made by modern practitioners, dragging everyone's public image down, and furthering the perception that this is a contentious and extremely political style, or are we going to decide to avoid being critical of the claims made by modern practitioners and allow each to have their say, acting in a more reporterly role. 

 I don't care which way we go, but a judicious application of either approach is necessary.  That is, if we are to question the claims of one practitioner, then we must question the claims of all.  And if we decide that one practitioner's claims are exempt from challenge, then they all must be. 

 Which approach do the editors on this page want?