Wikipedia:Peer review/Balfour Declaration/archive2

Balfour Declaration

Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article was not promoted at FAC, but from the comments received it might not be too far off. Further comments here from interested reviewers would be greatly appreciated. I am also trying to decide whether to continue working towards the goal of reaching WP:TFA on 2 November – the declaration's 100th anniversary.

Thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to just leave well alone till after the anniversary, see how that goes, then renominate. I don't see that the anniversary per se has anything to do with FA status.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the usual reason for requesting an article to be WP:TFA on its anniversary or similar is that they are likely to get many more views on a relevant date. For this article this year there is an additional reason, i.e. that there will be a number of events worldwide recognizing the centennial,[1][2] so it will look good for Wikipedia – and add credibility to its coverage of Israel-Palestine and related topics – if it is able to proudly do the same. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Continuing what I started at the FAC. It's fine, by the way, to respond to any points directly underneath where I make them. You don't have to open a separate section.

• "Lloyd-George's War Cabinet on account of his experience" I would say "because of" rather than "on account of"

•  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• One solution for dealing with the various drafts might be to collapse the text, that is that you have to click in order to expand it.

•  Done I agree this is a good idea. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "was sent in a short letter from Balfour to Walter Rothschild, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, on 2 November 1917." the date can probably be moved up to after "sent".

•  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "In approving the Balfour Declaration, Leo Amery testified under oath to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in January 1946 from his personal knowledge that:" It reads like he approved it in 1946. The prose could use improvement.

•  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "David Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time of the declaration," Even if you're saying it just for emphasis, I'd still shorten it slightly, such as "Lloyd George, Prime Minister at the time of the declaration" lest if feel like you are repeating basic material.

•  Done I have tidied up this section considerably - I think it reads much better now. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper" not counting captions of images, this is the first time you mention him so should be linked. Possibly it could be explained why he was doing a White Paper.

•  Done I have done this and added an explanation. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "This text thereby avoided committing the entirety of Palestine to the Jewish National Home, resulting in controversy in future years over the intended scope.[140][122] This was subsequently clarified by the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which wrote that "the terms of the declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded 'in Palestine.'"[142]" This reads as if 1922 was subsequent to the controversy, surely not the case. Also, I note the references are not in order. Either the refs should be in numerical order or you're of the practice where the most significant ref comes first, either way it should be consistent throughout.

•  Done removed "subsequently" and reordered refs Onceinawhile (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent on whether "Cabinet' is capitalised, whether you use it as a noun or an adjective there seem to be inconsistencies.

•  Done I went for upper case (FYI the MW dictionary confirms the term is "often capitalized" [3])

• "In the ongoing Sinai and Palestine Campaign," I wonder if this paragraph is really germane to the article.

•  Done I agree. I kept the piece about Palestine falling to the British shortly thereafter, but put it in a better place and tidied up a few other points of flow. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Shortly after beginning the role in July 1920, he gave a reading at the Hurva Synagogue in Jerusalem, which, according to his memoirs, led the congregation of older settlers to feel that the "fulfilment of ancient prophecy might at last be at hand".[ad][191]" If I recall correctly, he was called as maftir and read the haftarah for Shabbat Nachamu, (Isaiah 40:1-26) which was, to say the least, appropriate. I think something is lost in just calling it a "reading".

•  Question: A great point; it would be worthwhile if we can make this even more powerful. I have elongated the quote from his memoirs in the notes; it doesn't state that he was giving the last reading, nor – to my read at least – that the Isaiah 40 reading he refers to was definitely given by him. But perhaps there are better sources on this. Any chance you can remember where you read this? Onceinawhile (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Done with thanks. I managed to find a better version of the same source, which has footnotes. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Weizmann had argued that one consequence of such a public commitment by Great Britain, making the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine one of the Allies' war aims, was that it would have three effects:" Did this really do that? Balfour did not speak for France, for one thing, and was it really a "war aim" that the Allies said they were fighting for?

•  Done removed the clause. It's not necessary to open this question. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1922 Congress officially endorsed American support through passage of the Lodge–Fish Resolution[222][223][111]" refs out of order? Also, the reference to Wilson just below could make people think that the author conceived Wilson to be in office in 1922.

•  Done, I reordered both. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Following Bonar Law's appointment as Prime Minister" first time he's mentioned in text.

•  Done linked Onceinawhile (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• " the Mandatory" the reader may not understand that this is Britain. Too technical I think.

•  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much it for now. I'll keep an eye on things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: a big thank you for reviewing the article in such great detail, and for your consistently excellent comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Corinne

[moved from user talk page] I saw that you had made a few of the changes I suggested. You'll see that I fixed one typo. In the Balfour Declaration#Early Zionism section, I wonder why you kept the past perfect tense "had helped". That suggests that what happened in Central and Eastern Europe happened before what was mentioned in the first sentence. Is that really the case? I thought the sentence about Central and Eastern Europe was one example of what was mentioned in the first sentence, so past tense ("helped") would be appropriate. I'd be interested to know what you think.

Early in that section is a long note. I have WikEd enabled, so it is shaded in gray. I noticed toward the end of the note the following characters:

• ...."other"."

This means that the word "other" is being emphasized within a larger quote. However, usually, when this happens, at least in US style manuals, the inner quotation marks (those around "other") are changed to single quotation marks. If this is at odds with British style manuals, then I just don't know about them. Is it important that the larger, surrounding material be in quotation marks? Just thought I'd ask. – Corinne (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95 I see that, in this edit you added commas around the phrase beginning with the past participle "issued", adding an edit summary indicating that it was to avoid having "which" refer to World War I. I can certainly understand why you did that, but I'd like to mention a few things: First, I'd like to point out that "issued by the British government" is a reduced adjective clause. It is reduced because "which was" or "that was" has been left off the beginning. I have noticed that writers of British English find it acceptable to use "which" not only to introduce a non-restrictive clauses (one that contains extra, non-essential information) but also to introduce a restrictive clause (one that contains essential, limiting, or identifying information) whereas an American writer would be more likely to use "that" to introduce a restrictive clause. As I understand it, speakers of British English consider both "which" and "that" acceptable for a restrictive clause, but in practice, at least on Wikipedia, "which" seems to be used more often than "that". Without the commas, "issued by the British government" is a reduced restrictive clause. With the commas, it is a reduced non-restrictive clause. I think the sentence reads better when the [reduced] clause is a restrictive clause. It's too early in the article to have a sentence containing what is essentially an afterthought. It should sound like an essential part of the definition/description of the Balfour Declaration. If you agree, and the commas are removed to make it again a [reduced] restrictive clause, the question then is whether to use "which" or "that". To a speaker of British English, "which" used to introduce a restrictive clause would sound correct. I agree that ambiguity is something to avoid, but in this case I don't think a war could ever read, so I think it is clear enough that the subject of read is the declaration. A speaker of American/US English would prefer "that", but the article is written in British English, so I must leave it up to Onceinawhile or other editors to decide which word to use. I'll write out both here:

(a) The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I which read:

(b) The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I that read:

 – Corinne (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with this sentence is that it contains a series of nested clauses (A issued by B during C which D), making it simply awkward. I know what it means, but it seems a shame to start such a wonderful article with a clunker of a sentence. I tried a minimally invasive fix using a comma, since I know that the lead has been a subject of some discussion, but the real fix is to re-think or rephrase the whole sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that ", which read" can simply be removed. Zero^talk 13:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I kept thinking about this sentence as I was trying to get to sleep last night. I realized there was something awkward about it and tried to think of a better way to construct it. I still think "issued by the British government during World War I needs to remain as it was, with no comma preceding it, but I think it would help both the sentence and the lede if a bit were added at the end. If you look at the sentence that now follows the quote:

The declaration, which announced support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

I think we can agree that it is a little long and wordy. If we take the first part of this sentence and add it to the end of the initial sentence, this sentence becomes more reasonable.

• The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. [optional] It reads:

[quote here]

After the quote:

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.

 – Corinne (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, since I don't see any response, I don't know whether you have decided to leave the beginning of the lede the way it is or not, but I thought, to make it easier to compare, I would write the entire first two paragraphs out here, incorporating my suggestion just above:

Suggested revision to beginning of lede to avoid having "which read/that read" at the end of the first sentence and to avoid two "which" clauses:

• The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. It reads:

His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.

 – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it is good, except that in keeping with the established past tense it should be "It read" rather than "It reads". Zero^talk 00:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I suppose you're right.  – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Corinne: many thanks again for leading this discussion. I like these amendments, although as a result of these discussions I have been thinking further myself about the lead sentence and have come up with one additional thought.

We now have two sentences, one before the quote and one after, with the first being a summary of what the declaration was in concept and the second being a summary of what form it took. That first sentence looks like it is aiming to encapsulate all the concepts of primary importance. To my mind those primary concepts are that the declaration was:

• a public statement
• made during wartime
• by the British
• announcing support for a homeland for Jews worldwide
• to be located in Palestine, which Britain were poised to take from the Ottomans and in which Jews then formed only a small minority

The problem with the currently proposed sentence is that: (a) it seems to imply that the Brits were proposing to support the protection of the Jews currently in Palestine, and (b) without being clear that it was aimed at Jews "worldwide" and that Palestine was mostly non-Jews, it only covers concepts in the first half of the declaration and not the second half.

I am equally keen to avoid overcomplicating the sentence; I think Jonesey's point about the series of nested clauses is right.

I don't yet have a proposed solution, but wanted to raise this while I try to formulate a proposal.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the best I have come up with so far. I think it needs more work:

• The Balfour Declaration was a British government public statement issued during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a "national home" for the worldwide Jewish people in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population. It read:

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to implement this to allow for more comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to FAC comments

Hi Corinne, I promised to explain my response to your FAC comments. Since it has been archived, I will set them out here:

• 1. implemented as proposed (I note the discussion above, which i'll respond to shortly)
• 2. implemented as proposed
• 3. implemented as proposed, although "This meeting ultimately" replaced with "Subsequent discussions" because it seemed too much weight to put on a single meeting, even if it was the first formal negotiation
• 4. implemented as proposed, although add the word "preceding" to highlight that the discussion took place before the authorization, and used the word "referenced" instead of "included" as it feels more verbal than documentary
• 5. implemented as proposed
• 6. implemented as proposed, although kept Palestinian for clarity
• 7. implemented as proposed
• 8. implemented as proposed. I didn't combine the sentences as I consider the two points to be communicating different things. On the "had helped" question, I think I must have overlooked that. I have spent some time considering the question today, and I am still not clear in my mind. The two sentences are describing parallel dynamics, although the "romantic nationalism" theme in Europe arguably began earlier than the wave of anti-semitism which showed itself violently in Russia of the 1880s.
• 9. implemented as proposed
• 10. I fixed this
• 11. implemented as proposed
• 12. implemented as proposed throughout

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

On the inner quotation marks point from your comment in the thread above, I entirely agree and have fixed this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

Having inputted the plethora of comments received in the GA, PR, FAC and now PR2, I think I have developed a reasonable sense of what is needed for the FAC now. I have just printed out a full copy of the article - on actual paper (old fashioned I know) - and am going to try to perfect it with handwritten markup. I'm going to try reading from the bottom to the top and then the top to the bottom. Then i'll input the changes into the article. Any other suggestions for new reviewing techniques would be appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It feels a little like ironing. Most of the small creases have been smoothed out through the previous reviews. But, although noone mentioned it to date, to my read there were three or four reasonably-sized disconnects in the flow of the text. These have taken a bit of rolling-up-the-sleeves, and more than one go with the iron, to get perfect. There are just one or two left now that I'm aiming to fix over the next couple of days. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done It was a lot of work, and a tough week, but hopefully worth it. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Zero

Although the word "worldwide" was added to remove an ambiguity, it created the awful combination "worldwide Jewish people in Palestine". There must be a better solution. Are you opposed to "the establishment in Palestine" because it matches the wording of the declaration itself? Unfortunately, the drafters of the BD already used the most natural word order. Zero^talk 07:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair point.

I am opposed to exactly tracking the declaration wording because it is redundant to the quote immediately below. Also the context of the declaration is clear that it is referring to worldwide Jews, but the language - when out of context - isn't as clear.

I agree a better construction would be good.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Would diaspora work? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be more elegant, but it's a quite a loaded term for the lead. See e.g. [4], [5], [6]. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

How about:

The Balfour Declaration was a British government public statement issued during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a Jewish "national home" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population.

? Zero^talk 13:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that the juxtaposition of "Jewish 'national home'" vs. "minority Jewish population" implies reasonably strongly that we are talking about Jews worldwide. I have been racking my brains for other solutions which spell this out, but they are all too clunky. So I can live with this. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Excuse my confusion, but are you discussing the first sentence in the lede here? If not, I apologize. I must have missed earlier discussion on this sentence since I didn't remember seeing the phrase "with a minority Jewish population" at the end of the sentence. I actually wonder if this phrase is necessary. I don't think it is needed in this first sentence of the article. I think it detracts from the main point of the sentence, what the Balfour Declaration was, and makes the sentence weaker. This particular information can be given later in the article. Forgive my ignorance, but why is it important to mention it in this sentence? If there had not been a minority Jewish population in Palestine, would the British government not selected it for the national home of the Jewish people? Wasn't there a minority Jewish population in many countries around the world at that time? If so, then it seems to me that this bit of information is unremarkable and just extends the sentence unnecessarily. Also, why put "national home" in quotation marks? It makes it sound as if it wasn't really to be a national home, when in fact it would be a national home. Finally, I see you changed "a public statement issued by the British government" back to "a British government public statement", which I find very awkward. Was there discussion on this that I missed, or did you (Onceinawhile) just decide on your own to change it back? Just curious. I'll leave the rest to you; this is all I'll say.  – Corinne (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, yes that's right; the first comment on this topic was [7], which notes the problems with the previous version.

Perhaps the main point is that the lead sentence needs to describe the whole declaration, not just half of it, and without following the declaration text verbatim.

On your question "had there not been a minority Jewish population in Palestine, would the British government not selected it for the national home of the Jewish people," I hadn't thought about it from that angle. What the wording is trying to get at is that the Jewish population in Palestine was not a majority, because in the late 19th / early 20th century in every other region of the world nations were created based on the characteristics of the majority (the concept of self-determination). It is exactly this point that makes the Balfour Declaration so unique. I would love to find a more elegant way of communicating the same.

National home is in quotation marks because it was a highly unusual term with no legal precedent and was used with the specific goal of ambiguity. This is described in the body of the article.

On "public statement issued by the British government", I agree with you. I changed it because the sentence was getting a little long and this took some words out, and trying (perhaps incompetently) to follow your advice on "reducing" phrases. I am very happy to change it back.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I have changed back the "public statement" phrase, as proposed. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Once the above (and potential other) reviewers are finished, I'll read through the article again and see if I can find something new to add. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, that's great news, thank you. I have spent the last week reviewing the article upward, downwards, left and right, and I I've ironed out all the points that I have been able to identify. Which was a lot more than I had expected to find... I am pleased to say that I have no more edits to make.

The article is now definitely ready for another pair of eyes. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll ping Brianboulton first to see if he has any additional points apart from those raised at the FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, just to let you know that Brian told me a week ago at [8] that he hopes to be able to comment here if he can find the time, but that it may not be possible within the timeframe.

Also yesterday marked two weeks since the archiving of the FAC; I have asked Sarastro1 if he would be able to share perspectives on whether it is ready to go back. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give it a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think it reads very well on second reading. I added some links and other things. I think you can go ahead and re-nominate it as soon as you can, but here are some more observations:
• I would maybe explain Sublime Porte and Young Turks in parenthesis, and introduce Nahum Sokolow. White Paper of 1939 certainly needs an in-text explanation.
  •  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• To me, the historiography section seems to come too early (looks out of place), as it consists of retrospective reflections long after the fact. It seems it would belong right after reactions. Also, much of the rest of the article is historiographical in nature, so it seems a bit strange to have one section with this title?
  •  Done further to the discussion below. I am very pleased with this move. It works very elegantly immediately after the Evolution of British Opinion section, as they flow perfectly per the chronological narrative (i.e. transitioning post the change of government in 1922). Onceinawhile (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, looks much better to me too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• "These amendments are discussed in further detail in the “Terms” section below." I'm not sure if such a disclaimer is necessary. You also don't have anything like that anywhere else in the article.
  •  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Again, it may be good to cut a few of the quotes, just to smoothen out the inevitable discussion they will bring...
  • On this one, I am certainly prepared to cut down a few of the quotes / notes. Of course I am keen not to go too far so as to damage the article and undermine the strength and support that the notes provide. If ok with you I would prefer to let the discussion take place, because, if we’re lucky and it’s a fulsome and substantive discussion, consensus will form with enough specificity to allow me to direct any edits with precision. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, just be prepared, reviewers may be less eager to continue a review if they have to get into prolonged discussions that belong on the talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am worried about that. It’s been discussed on talk before and there was no consensus to reduce the notes. So it’s not a talk consensus or content or MOS point but an FAC question. Since there is no specific FAC criteria covering this, and assuming there is no precedent FAC consensus on this that can be pointed to, I don’t see any other choice but for some kind of discussion at the FAC. Whatever I do now, short of gouging the heart out of the notes, is unlikely to preempt the need for discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Trimming lengths of individual quotes may make them less imposing. Could be a compromise, instead of downright removing whole quotes. Since people seem to be complaining about the text ratio, not really the number of quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a great suggestion, thanks. I have started doing so, and have a few more to go. It has helped me identify situations where some of the detail is already in the text and doesn't need duplicating, and also where some of the footnote detail would be better in the text. I will keep going, and then start the FAC when done. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice, should have thought of it before, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Many times throughout, you don't present historians as such, but merely mention their names (and their roles are unclear as a result). I think they should all be identified.
  •  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• "The second safeguard clause was a commitment that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine." Standalone sentences like this should be cited, even if they merely summarise later text.
  •  Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• That's it so far, I can add my support to an upcoming FAC when these are dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, FunkMonk, a word about historiography; while the section can of course be moved somewhere else, historiography is meant to be a discussion of the principal recognized scholarly contributions to the subject matter and not just the subject matter itself (which is history or historical not historiographical). Like, for example, here http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/SINMID.html.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, but the point is that in its current position, it disrupts the flow and chronology of the article. We go from just before the declaration is published to decades later for retrospective views, then back again to reactions immediately after it was published. And again, it isn't the only place with historiographical content in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk, these are really helpful comments, thank you. As to the historiography, I know what you mean. I have worked hard to create a narrative which flows smoothly throughout the article, and I agree that this section is a departure from that. I think it could fit well either just before, or else in, the Long Term Impact section.

Before I move anything around, you mentioned that you’ve seen historiographical content elsewhere - I assume you are referring primarily to the “Terms” section? To my mind, the distinction is that the Historiography section relates to “historiography of motivations” - i.e. century-old debate as to ′′why’’ the declaration was issued. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it is a problem if there is some historiographical discussion outside the such named section, the problem is mainly just the flow. As long as it doesn't come between publication and reaction. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Done, per above [9]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)