I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least. You got

I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least. You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written. I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.