OK, since the discussion here has veered from its original scope, that is the pros and cons of updating the history section, and nobody commented on the proposed updated version in my draft area, I am going to insert it therefrom, slightly redacted, just quoting the sources, as per the criticisms above.  

 The WP:Undue or WP:OR arguments, if wielded again, can be counteracted by the following: 

 1. The article has been tagged as "not a worldwide view of the subject for over a year": I am working toward expanding it thereby by historical quotes from the UK and Australia. 

 2. The quotes have been stripped from any comments on their presumed meaning.   

 3. The full context is in the "Quote" fields of the references.  

 4. The accounts to the newspaper archives has been provided by WP itself, so many other enabled editors can check in the scans if I am not making these up.   

 5. The other sections discuss who said what in Canada or the USA 30 years ago in way too much detail, see my criticism of one of them below.  

 So if you do not have reasonable WP-worthy objective arguments, which could have been raised above in the past week, please do not remove these sources by now, using ad-hominems or your subjective take on WP's policies, only edit or add thereto for clarity's sake.