" 

 :::You list eight negative reviews by professors of history. Now, unless the number of leading historians in the world is less than 16, the statement in the current revision of this page is incorrect. Presumably, you do not mean what you say literally, as suggested by your argument that ""the main evidence for the claim is the absence of positive reviews in scholarly journals"". So, I suggest that at the very least you use a more literal turn of phrase. For example, ""reviews in scholarly journals have mostly been negative"", or ""a number of prominent [less POV than ""leading""] historians have written largely negative reviews"". I'd accept this wording for the moment, but not necessarily indefinitely — we have to be very careful about these most/many/largely/etc. statements, since they're almost impossible to verify objectively. I expect you think the first sentence of this comment is pedantic, but we have to be pedantic here: we can't just say ""most this"" and ""many that"" without some pretty strong justification. Why not just list these negative reviews (in a more compact form) rather than making such generalisations? It would probably get your point across far more effectively than the borderline weasel-wording in the current revision.  "