I get what you were trying to say, for sure, but the fact of the matter is that you weren't actually familiar with the history, as you now admit, and ignored the entirety of the Wikipedia article except for a single sentence in order to draw support for the conclusion you wanted validated. Now you're falling back on pure conjecture to support your conclusion. The Wikipedia article does contradict the original statement, if you still don't see how then I can't really help you except to suggest you perhaps review in detail.