I remember a huge hullabaloo about this a few months ago.

The problem is that it would be very very hard for an entire 'cycle' to go unnoticed for so long, as cycles consist of an enormous amount of work spanning centuries of time.

I figured they were going to remove them for 1.0, simply because, being unpublished works, there is no way for the EB team to prove they existed.

That being said, they take historical accuracy fairly seriously, so I don't think they would add them willy-nilly.

It's a sensitive subject IIRC, and I don't mean any offense to the team members by this post. I have 100% faith that if they included it, there is a good reason. Otherwise, they would have axed them, like they've done for so many other things which were proven false after a time.

Bootsiuv