No, they're saying the claims made about Henry Cort in a paper lack historical evidence in favor of telling an ideological story, which shouldn't have passed pe

No, they're saying the claims made about Henry Cort in a paper lack historical evidence in favor of telling an ideological story, which shouldn't have passed peer review. A couple of historians have already done the fact checking. Edit: Oh I misread your post. You're referring to commenters critiquing ideological opponents, not the author.