Talk:Fuzzball (string theory)

Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar

@Phantom Hoover:

With regard to your deletion (∆ edit here) of the pronunciation of “Chandrasekhar” claiming that it is “superfluous and inaccurate,” I’d have to agree with you that I may not have chosen the best option (there are many different pronunciation guides). But given that a Goggle search on “pronounce Chandrasekhar” yields scores of websites and YouTube videos on how to pronunce it, this clearly demonstrates a long-felt need for an easy-to-follow pronunciation guide. One of the websites alone had 18 different ways of pronouncing it.

And I dare estimate that fewer than one in a hundred people know how to follow the IPA pronunciation guide (/ˌtʃændrəˈʃeɪkər/), so those IPA guides aren’t useful for 99+ percent of our readership. Between the abstruse IPA guides and given the scores of on-line pronunciation guides, I see no foundation for stating that including a pronunciation in the English-language version of Wikipedia is, as you alleged, “superfluous.”

Given though, that there are many different ways for English-speaking people to pronounce his name, the pronunciation given preference at the top by Google, chaan·druh·say·kr is A) properly formed and B) now authoritatively cited. You may find the newly formed and properly cited form, in the second paragraph, here in the article.

Greg L (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I actually had second thoughts about whether the pronunciation was correct and so I also looked it up, and ended up correcting the pronunciation at both Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and Chandrasekhar limit to an IPA rendition that matches what you'd written, sourced against an English-language Indian documentary. I'm removing your pronunciation guide from this page again simply because the normal practice is to put the pronunciation guide for a name or term at the start of its own article to avoid clutter. But yes, I was wrong about the pronunciation being incorrect. Phantom Hoover (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phantom Hoover:

We need a non-IPA pronunciation on Wikipedia on things related to Chandrasekhar to make the pronunciation accessible to a greater number of readers. There are lousy practices all over Wikipedia, but using obscure practices because they’re extra-sciency is poor encyclopedic practices.

The amount of clutter here is beyond minimal. English-speaking readers aren’t expected to employ an alveolar trill when pronouncing the Hindi/Urdu “ra” sound. If, as you say, my original phonetic was correct all along (and after my own further digging, I am finding that to be the case too), then it serves a useful purpose here.

Please don’t delete it unless you can find a more compelling encyclopedic purpose than it “introduces” clutter… particularly when there are no phonetic pronunciations available elsewhere on this project. Greg L (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Also the manual of style is clear-cut on the IPA being the single preferred way to transliterate pronunciations, and for good reason. Everyone has their own idea of a respelling system for English and they all end up foundering on the total inconsistency of English orthography; and 'Chandrasekhar' is in any case not an English name.) Phantom Hoover (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phantom Hoover: The MOS was intended to have a single standard pronunciation technique right after the name in the lead for consistency; it wasn’t intended to proscribe a helpful parenthetical buried in referencing text. To avoid still more tedious do-da like this over something helpful to readers but unwelcome by wikipedians who think like you, fine. You get your way; I won’t include a helpful parenthetical for the 99% of people who have no clue what /ˌtʃændrəˈʃeɪkər/ means. The argument that “Well… they should know the IPA” is a lousy reason for an encyclopedia that is supposed to educate and use prose that doesn’t call attention to itself.

This reminds me of the passion that a handful of editors had years ago trying to get Wikipedia to use “mebibytes” and “kibibytes” instead of “megabytes” and “kilobytes” for RAM capacities… and a couple of those editors are still active, trying to slip the practice into Wikipedia through back-door tricks even though the 100% of the commercial computer world doesn’t use those proposed units. Just because something is fancy, doesn’t make it better prose and a sound encyclopedic practice. Greg L (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the article and this talk page it's clear to me that you're treating this article as your personal fiefdom, and that your approach to pronunciation guides is far from the only departure from normal encyclopaedic content you've introduced. I'll have to find time to review this article more thoroughly, because it currently reads like an attempt at writing a textbook, containing large amounts of redundant detail on subjects that have their own articles, rather than a focused entry on a specific subject as part of a cross-referenced encyclopaedia. Phantom Hoover (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, that’s not even a thinly veiled threat. You clearly threatened to be disruptive and vindictive after someone pushed back at an edit that you yourself admitted was in error. Moreover, looking at your contributions history, it appears your specialty is deleting large swaths from articles, accompanied by edit comments like “Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”

I suggest you try contributing to Wikipedia in a more useful manner (like adding well cited material that makes articles truly better), cool your jets, and think long and hard about what a collaborative writing environment is about. Contributing to Wikipedia is not threatening to do more of your delete-large-swaths-of-articles treatment to projects others have labored on for months. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Scope of this article (the information is not properly duplicated elsewhere)

TL;DR

I’d like to share a thought about this article. Someone mentioned that they could find some of the information mentioned here elsewhere on Wikipedia. Well… sure. Since fuzzballs are a type of black hole, there is obviously overlap. But, no; for the most part, the impression is false because the implementations and focus points differ greatly. Also, since many people learn visually, I created five static images and one animation for this article. As with all images, the wikipedian community is welcome to use these new images across the project.

Before contemplating deleting sections of this article in the erroneous belief that a given bit of information is properly and accurately given an encyclopedic treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, please…

1. First carefully examine those other articles,
2. Correct any errors of fact, as there will be many,
3. Ensure all necessary citations are present and truly support the statement,
4. Correct the presentation to ensure it is given an encyclopedic treatment, including grammar, and
5. Ensure that every key point of fact mentioned here is also mentioned there.

Keen attention must be given to citations that purportedly support assertions of fact but don’t. Some editors might even be purposely using wholesale fakes to make unsuspecting wikipedians accept on face value that the “cited” assertion is correct and correctly cited. This phenomenon is endemic across Wikipedia’s science-related articles.

Details

For the most part, this article (Fuzzballs) is focused on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron stars. I’ve endeavored to delve into very specific aspects of fuzzballs, such as how their mean densities differ from those of neutron stars. Such points of fact are either poorly covered elsewhere on Wikipedia or are not covered at all.

Importantly, while laboring on this article, I noted glaring and wildly incorrect assertions in articles I linked to, such as this version of "Neutron star", which falsely asserted as follows:

---

Neutron stars that can be observed are extremely hot and typically have a surface temperature of around 600,000 K.^{[9] [10] [11] [12] [a]}

---

This is, of course, nonsense. Neutron stars have no “typical” temperature. Neutron stars are left-over cinders that don’t generate heat through fusion; they are like a spatter ball of hot metal from a welder’s torch that start out exceedingly hot and rapidly cool. Neutron stars can be tens of millions of kelvin immediately after formation and inexorably cool down to hundreds of thousands of kelvin after millions of years.

Critically, none of the five citations (simulated in the above quotation) that supposedly “cite” that statement supported it. Most of them were cited to books that are hard to access without inter-library loans, but two of the citations were to websites that didn’t even have temperature as an attribute being discussed. Click here to explore the actual “citations.”

Errors like these tend to start a vicious circle where nonsense on Wikipedia is regurgitated on science-related websites and then wikipedians turn around and use those websites as citations to support the falshood!

It’s easy for a non-scientific, all-volunteer army of contributors on Wikipedia to introduce errors—particularly in science- and math-related articles. The false information regarding temperature was introduced 26 December 2013 and at that time cited a scientific paper on ArXiv, "The Neutron Star Mass Distribution", that didn’t discuss temperatures at all.

After that wildly false bit about temperature had been on the Neutron star article for 3612 days (10 years!), I finally corrected it. I spotted far too many other errors on the Neutron star article for me to address; it’s a mess right now and suffers from thousands of small drive-by shootings over more than a decade. The community must do its part to correct it and the many other science-related articles on this project. That Wikipedia’s articles are a mess should come as no surprise to any wikipedian who’s been around for any length of time.

Proper citations on arcane scientific articles that are difficult to cite

To address the problem of incorrect or false citations, the community should consider requiring that all citations must reference the specific part of the website or the specific chapter, figure number, or table number in a scientific paper. An example of this is as follows:

^[14] "Magnetic Hydrogen Atmosphere Models and the Neutron Star RX J1856.5−3754" (PDF), Wynn C. G. Ho et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 375, pp. 821-830 (2007), submitted December 6, 2006, ArXiv:astro-ph/0612145. The authors calculated what they considered to be "a more realistic model, which accounts for magnetic field and temperature variations over the neutron star surface as well as general relativistic effects," which yielded an average surface temperature of 4.34+0.02
−0.06×10⁵ K at a confidence level of 2𝜎 (95%); see §4, Fig. 6 in their paper for details.

Of course, citations should ideally be from secondary sources but this isn’t always possible on arcane scientific subjects. Note that WP:SCHOLARSHIP reads as follows regarding primary sources, Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. When adding citations referencing scientific papers, “caution,” I think, means pointing out precisely where to look in the paper and what one can expect to read when they get there. This is demonstrated in the above example. Doing so will make lives easier for all wikipedians; expecting this practice to be the norm will improve the project.

Greg L (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Interior structure of a classical black hole

Some of the more salvageable material on this page is the comparisons between qualitative properties of a fuzzball and that of a classical Schwarzschild black hole, but unfortunately a lot of it rests on misconceptions about the latter. A Schwarzschild black hole is not a spherical event horizon enclosing an empty spherical volume with a tiny grain of infinite density (the 'singularity') at the centre. Spacetime is incredibly distorted near the Schwarzschild radius and gets even more distorted inside; the interior volume and radius of the black hole are at best extremely difficult to describe; and the singularity is not a massive object that exists in space, it's a region in the future of the interior of the hole where general relativity breaks down. Almost all physicists agree that the singularity is unphysical and that a complete theory of quantum gravity should take over before it arises; the interesting aspect of the fuzzball seems to be that it takes over at the event horizon during formation of the hole. Phantom Hoover (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

@Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased for all to see and unambiguous and the end result makes your intentions clear as glass.

I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this. Greg L (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate you doing so immediately, as I don't think this dispute is going anywhere without neutral arbitration. I intend to continue editing the pre-August version of the page, importing material from the far longer version from a few days ago when it's appropriate and relevant. I would be surprised if anyone agrees with your accusation that this constitutes vandalism. Phantom Hoover (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of intent of vandalism

@Phantom Hoover: What you’ve done on this article is a demonstrably clear combination of Wikipedia:Vandalism (On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge) and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

The record of everything you’ve done here cannot be erased and is there for all to see. The intent of your actions is clear and unambiguous.

Several days ago, after the looked at your contributions history. Seeing your proclivity at deleting large swaths from articles (accompanied by edit comments like “Because it's part of the proof, you dolt.”), I tried to avoid your promised disruption, I rolled the article back to this version dating to 13:59, 5 August 2023 except I deleted a {More citations needed|date=July 2013} from it. That version of the article had errors and didn’t have a single citation.

I left that version up for a couple of days in hopes that you would settle down and lose interest in vandalism and violations of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Here’s what you did: all you did just now was to roll it back to the August version (the one with zero citations, except you made THESE minor changes to the lead to falsely make it appear that you had made edits in earnest to add value.

I hadn’t intended to set a trap for you; I merely wanted to avoid needless wikidrama and allow you time to cool down.

I’ll be taking you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents if you engage in any more of this.

Greg L (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am again asking you to raise this as an incident rather than threatening to do so. Phantom Hoover (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case that doesn't need to go to ANI. Phantom Hoover's actions speak louder than words. As @Greg L: alleged, this is a clear-cut case of disruptive editing that purposely made the article much much worse just to prove SOME sort of point. Or maybe the objective was just to annoy another editor. The above thread (Pronunciation of Chandrasekhar) where the two got crosswise over the inclusion of a pronunciation provides a good clue as to the underlying motives of Phantom Hoover and why he/she would harm the project like that. In the name of "improving an article" one doesn't roll it back from a modern version with 31 citations to a shadow of the article that has zero citations with the stated intention to one day make is suck less.

I'm restoring the original version, which is clearly superior. Phantom Hoover would be well advised to edit constructively throughout Wikipedia from hereon. MLee1957 (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@MLee1957: Thank you very much. Greg L (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I see I'm going to have to raise the incident myself, then. Phantom Hoover (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Despite your protestation in your edit summary professing “Good faith contributions,” they are obviously nothing of the sort. No one rightfully does what you did to this article (taking it from a well-reading article with 31 carefully researched citations and turn it into a stub from earlier this year that had no citations—and a “no citations” tag to boot). Wikipedia doesn’t need people stirring up drama for the shear joy of it.

As for the other editor (MLee1957) not being to your liking, would you be pleased with anyone on Wikipedia who actually disagreed with you? He/she is the one who responded to my request for advise on Talk:Neutron star. MLee1957 chose to respond and I did not solicit help from him/her directly. Greg L (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest, Greg L. (birthdate uncertain but had a son joining the military in 2006), I have an unproveable hunch that M. Lee (born 1957?) may be a relative of yours. But I suppose it could be a completely uninterested person who happened to create an account half an hour after you got into an argument, for the sole purpose of taking your side in said argument. Stranger things have happened. Phantom Hoover (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Phantom Hoover: You are persistently editing against consensus here. MLee1957 and I both see your continued removal of large swaths of material as disruptive editing to make a point. You must discuss such radical measures here on this talk page. Greg L (talk) 05:20, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am frankly gobsmacked that you would engage in such provocative actions while there is an ongoing ANI. Greg L (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not reverting to the early-August version of the page, I'm cutting out unnecessary content from your long-form version while keeping relevant citations and references. I don't know how any reasonable person could look at the notes section of your article, which contains around half of the total text and includes multiple embedded images and animations, and agree that this is a good way to structure an article on fuzzballs. I similarly don't know how you expect anyone to buy your line that you and MLee1957 form an overriding 'consensus', when they are clearly a friend you tag-teamed in when this dispute heated up on the 1st of December. Phantom Hoover (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Phantom Hoover. Please don't add your worse revision back Greg. Ultraneutral (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on which is worse, only that per WP:ONUS it's up to Greg L to build consensus for his version, if that's what he wants. Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The edits by @Phantom Hoover are obnoxious. The response by @Greg L in calling these edits vandalism was inappropriate but natural given the way @Phantom Hoover was approaching the article. The back-and-forth by both parties has not made this article better.

@Greg L gave a lengthy (way too long IMO) discussion on the scope of this article. That established consensus for his point of view (1>0). @Phantom Hoover made no comment.

In view of the massive deletes, @Phantom Hoover should have discussed the reasons on the Talk page. The August version does seem too long for such a minor topic, but a little human decency would avoid all this drama. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Leaving the squabbling over who did what aside, Greg L's post about the scope of this article contains a lot of irrelevant rambling (a common theme...), but I actually agree with part of it as a proposed goal: "For the most part, this article (Fuzzballs) is focused on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron stars.". This is basically what I also think the article should be. It's not the article Greg L wrote. The two largest deletions I made are of very long sections giving detailed descriptions of neutron star collapse and the mechanism of Hawking radiation. These sections say nothing about fuzzballs, are not used to support any other statements about fuzzballs, and include their own digressions so irrelevant as to approach the point of parody. There's a 300 word diversion about colour theory in there, with a link to the dress. Surely you agree that the article is better off without this material, at least? Phantom Hoover (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, don't leave the squabbling aside, that is my point. You created this situation, not Greg L. He puffed up the article with fluff. All you had to do was create a topic and say, "Hey the section on neutron star collapse seems too long, it should be a WP:summary; I checked and all of the material is already in neutron star. I'll cut the section back to a summary.". At most that results in a focused discussion on the content and what should be included.

I urge you to focus on the goal of a good encyclopedia, not winning a content war. Greg L has done some good work and just got carried away. Help bring balance and improvement through cooperation rather than slash and burn. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to focus on improvements to the article here. You keep blaming me for escalating this to a dispute, but I made a polite, friendly contribution to the Chandrasekhar pronunciation guide and immediately got a hostile, dismissive response from Greg L, and then when I said I had more issues with the page content and would be reviewing it for relevance he deleted the talkpage discussion and then rolled the entire article back 4 months in what he has subsequently admitted was an attempted smokescreen to make me lose interest. He was clearly not interested in discussing the scope of the article.

I would really like to move past the squabbling and finger-pointing and start actually forming a consensus on what kind of material falls inside the scope of the article. Could you let me know if you think the two sections I linked in my previous post are worthy of inclusion or deletion, for instance? Phantom Hoover (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Those look like good removals to me. I agree that focusing on the distinctive properties of fuzzballs and how they differ from classic black holes and neutron stars is a sensible goal for the article. Bringing in wave-particle duality, charcoal briquettes, complaints about science YouTube, etc., doesn't actually work towards that goal. Some of the removed material could potentially be suitable for other articles, while some of it isn't encyclopedic. (E.g., online popular culture sites such as physics discussion boards, science websites, and even a university physics professor on YouTube writing calculations on a blackboard were promulgating a misunderstanding belongs on a personal blog, not here.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Reference 4, the Why String Theory book by Conlon, doesn't appear to mention fuzzballs. Its use here amounts to WP:SYNTH. The animation of vibrating strings amounts to decoration, and the lengthy discussion in the adjacent paragraphs about experimentally hunting for superpartners is off-topic here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

We should break the content discussion out into a new section, there's quite a lot of work to be done and I've found a couple of good sources that should definitely be used. Phantom Hoover (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

One person setting out what they think an article should be about doesn't establish a consensus. 1 is greater than 0, but a consensus requires at least two people to agree. Most of the "Scope of this article" section above isn't even about the scope of this article; the "Details" are nearly all about a different article, and nearly all of the rest is general concerns about citation practices that probably shouldn't even be raised on the Talk page of a specific, semi-obscure article (instead of WikiProject Physics, the Village Pump, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your comments about the extraneous content in the article and the scope topic. But no one responded to the scope topic. No one commented on the fluff. One person setting out to delete a lot of recent addition does not establish a consensus, but it does create a lot of extraneous drama, quite a lot more than needed for a semi-obscure article. Humans are editing these articles, at least until we drive them all away. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Content and sources

I'm just going to dump some papers I've found that may be accessible enough to extract some useful details from:

• Fuzzballs and Observations, 2020, overview of observational predictions of fuzzballs for non-specialised theoretical physicists. Might help with the section on potential tests and observations.
• Fuzzballs and Microstate Geometries: Black-Hole Structure in String Theory, 2022, recent academic overview of the status of the theory overall.
• Observational Opportunities for the Fuzzball Program, 2023, has a very striking side-by-side render of a black hole compared to a fuzzball, showing very different images; but may be describing a fine-tuned example model rather than a generic property of fuzzball solutions.

I'm particularly curious about what fuzzballs are actually predicted to look like, mostly because I'd always assumed they looked exactly like black holes emitting Hawking radiation until you start probing the microstructure near the horizon. I suppose any viable model more or less has to, otherwise it would be inconsistent with the event horizon telescope images. But I don't remember seeing any sources that clearly say that, so I'm wondering if it's something I made up in my head. From what I've seen of the state of the theory it's possible that questions like what happens to a ray of light hitting a fuzzball simply have no settled answer at this stage, and the article would have to reflect that if so. Phantom Hoover (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The current sourcing seems to rely heavily upon science news stories, university websites/press releases, and such. Moving in the direction of recent journal articles would be a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

While I do look warily on pop science publications they're the closest thing we have to reputable secondary sources on this topic, so I think we still need to keep them to hand as a counterbalance to the hazards of trying to directly interpret primary research. I've been driving myself halfway to distraction trying to build a picture from the papers I've seen, my impression being that they focus very intensely on the handful of things they can actually prove and are frankly handwavey and heuristic when it comes to the broader picture of what goes on beyond 'easy' models of particular string microstates around the horizon. There are some fascinating details in there that seem like they really ought to go into the article but properly synthesising them based on the information available and my level of expertise is not easy. Some examples:

• Mathur's explanation of how a fuzzball can form from a large shell of collapsing matter is that it will quantum tunnel into a fuzzball state much sooner than the Hawking evaporation time. That's fine when it comes to resolving the black hole information paradox, but to me it seems to say that you get a classical collapse and horizon and then on some super-astronomical timescale it fuzzes out through tunnelling. But that last part is pure OR.
• There's a suggestion in some places, like this PBS Spacetime video that doesn't give any elaboration or sources, that fuzzballs actually have no interior and space around them looks like $\mathbb {R} ^{3}\setminus D^{3}$. Deep in a couple of papers I've seen some elaboration of this, in terms of caps on $S^{1}$ factors in the extra string dimensions, and again it seems really fascinating and important to the qualitative picture but fuck if I feel qualified to pull that out of the papers and present it to the public. It might not even be a generic feature of the theory!

I dunno, it turns out that advanced theoretical physics and writing encyclopaedias is hard. Who knew. Phantom Hoover (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In my grumpier moods, I would suggest that if the only secondary sources are pop science, then we shouldn't have an encyclopedia article. We shouldn't be in the business of sweeping up whatever falls down to the bottom of the popularization cliff and passing that off as information. But that's almost certainly too pessimistic a take in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

See also section

Maybe add back a very few that are not already linked, that will be eventually worked into the article per seealso, thank you, Malerooster (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Picture of Black Hole Misleading

The "Picture of a Black Hole" over the Hawaiian island is extremly misleading to non-scientific readers, as it makes one think that a Black Hole is a normal sphere sitting in a flat space with a euclidean shape, volume etc. That is clearly not the case, if you know anything about general relativity, and leads to misconceptions amongst laypeople. 159.205.161.203 (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s another leftover from the old version of the article, which was deeply flawed and needed a ground-up rewrite that I found difficult to approach given the lack of sources that could be easily summarised into an encyclopaedic article (which I have no experience writing). I keep telling myself I’ll get back to it one day. Phantom Hoover (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)