Those diffs actually seem solid. Words like "bogus" and "baseless" don't make for objective articles.
True. But you shouldnt remove words from the headlines of an article being cited.
These are actually quite good edits. In the original versions of these articles, all the words being removed were not supported by any citation or anything else - so, while it's quite possible these adjectives were true (as I personally believe so), it's better to remove them unless they can be backed up.
Actually the language comes directly from the source, which was cited when the edits were reverted by another editor. Indicating that a claim is refuted is, imo, an important detail to include.
Yeah sources need to be objective as well, not read like op-ed pieces.