:And here we are months later and after removing the section again, as it is just not allowed for editors to make original comparisons like this, the original adder is essentially edit warring to keep it in. The worst part is the sheer admittance that he made it up. Not only does the text say that there's no name for this (because there's no source for this), but the adding editor is also the one who tagged the section as unsourced, almost as though they want other editors to find the sources to support his original idea. That doesn't work; if someone wants to add an analysis, they must source that analysis. Good faith tells us to tag before removal, but when the material is already tagged and the structure is in such clear violation of the guidelines, there's little to do but remove it.