Talk:Gynostemma pentaphyllum

Taxobox

This article needs a taxobox. Badagnani 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! Melchoir 01:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Proposal: Twisting/Entwining Vine Indigo (i.e. the plant)

source: http://www.mandarintools.com/worddict.html 絞 means to twist, to entwine, to turn, to wind, to wring (or the adjective/gerund thereof: twisting, entwining, turning, winding, wringing)

股 gǔ means 1. (合股线 [hé gǔ xiàn]) twine 2. (屁股 pì gu5) buttocks, bottom, podex, behind, arse/ass, end, rear

3. thigh [anatomy], shank [anatomy] 4. part, section, portion 5. (股票 gǔ piào) stock, (股份 gǔ fèn) share, company share 6. classifier for thin, long objects [such as twines [botany] (of vines); poles, rods, staffs, (chop)sticks, wands] 7. (a whiff of...) classifier for smoke, gases, odo[u]rs/scents/smells/fragrances, electrical currents, spirals

source: http://dict.leo.org/chde?lp=chde&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=&search=%E8%82%A1

藍 means 1. blue (the colo[u]r); 2. plants for dying the colour blue (such as true indigo [plant], anil = 木藍, Indigofera sp.; woad, dyer's woad = 菘藍, Isatis sp., e.g. Isatis vioalescens) or dyer's knotweed, "Chinese indigo" = 蓼藍; the mistranslation orchid comes from the homonymous 蘭/兰 lán (different ideograph!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.206.75 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of speculation/conjecture

The following sentence under the "Alternate names" section contains speculation (in boldface):

One U.S.-based company markets jiaogulan under the name "Panta," but this name does not seem to be derived from any Asian language; instead, the name most likely comes from the plant's Latin name.

Such unsourced conjecture doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article; it constitutes original research which is prohibited by policy. I have reverted it twice now, and it keeps coming back. If there exists a source, then the article should state that the source is doing the speculating, not the article. -Amatulic 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

More to the point, the fact that one non-notable U.S-based company markets Jiaogulan under some name is largely irrelevant to this article. I am beginning to consider the re-addition of this material either vandalism or a conflict of interest. Please justify its inclusion here before adding it back. =Axlq 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I take strong offense that the implication that I made any edit at Wikipedia, ever, due to a conflict of interest. You have really gone too far with this comment, and need to apologize for it immediately. I added the product names because they are common ones and use a latinized name similar to the use of "goji" for the Chinese wolfberry. This is strictly so that our users will know that these brand names are actually what is called "jiaogulan" in Chinese. You did revert four times, then threatened me. That was wrong. I suppose you got carried away, however, so please give me a reason why I should not report you for 4RR. Best, Badagnani 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, some points:

• If offending you was what it took to engage you in actual discussion, then it served its purpose. Please accept my apology for the ruse.
• Repeated adding unsourced conjecture, and text that misrepresents cited sources, without explaining why in the edit summary, qualifies as tendentious editing, and like vandalism its reversion is exempt from WP:3RR. I attempted to engage you in discussion but instead you kept reverting my edits (which I explained) without explanation of your own. I did not get carried away, I am attempting to protect the integrity of an article.
• I apologize for my failure to assume good faith here, but your behavior led me there after you continued your reversions after my polite request on your talk page.
• The common product name I see all over the place is "Jiaogulan". If you can find a source (other than the Panta company itself) saying it's commonly known as "Panta" then please add it, and I will cease deleting what I see as a non-notable and irrelevant addition to the article.
• Is there more than one brand name? If so, those should be mentioned instead of singling one out in particular.
• The text you keep adding back contains citations that don't support the claim.
• The text you keep adding back contains conjecture that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as stated in the comment at the beginning of this section.

Now, do you understand why I have a problem with this text? Your statement above doesn't make a convincing argument for inclusion. =Axlq 23:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for a troll. Badagnani 23:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer is, there were two brand names listed: Panta and Penta. Both are widely available and their names are confusing, hence the explanation for our readers that they are the same as jiaogulan on the page. I don't agree at all with your reasoning above and your tone remains offensive. Your blanking of sourced text is even worse, and even worse than that is your grandiose notion that you are "defending" the article and are thus exempt from 4RR, which you just did. Blanking sourced text, which you did, is very bad! Badagnani 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My tone may be harsh but at least I have remained civil. Sorry for my tone; I took offense at your behavior that I considered tendentious. I will excuse your name-calling because I know I have upset you.

Thank you for the explanation, but it still doesn't establish:

• That these are widely-known names.
• That the companies marketing Jiaogulan under these names (are there two companies?) are notable. Honestly, most of the U.S. marketing I see simply uses the name Jiaogulan.
• That any verifiable sources acknowledge that either of the two names are how Jiaogulan is commonly known in the U.S.

I've done some googling, and I'm not seeing anything that passes Wikipedia:Notability. Are these names marketed by a notable company? (For example, Coca-cola is trying to make a sweetener called Rebiania out of the stevia plant; such a company's interest in an herb is notable enough to include in that article.)

Can you propose some alternative text here on this talk page? I'm certainly willing to consider anything that makes the article useful, as long as it contains no conjecture or misrepresented sources. I didn't blank sourced text: the text originally cited two sources, one of which I have that doesn't mention either brand name, and the other was an academic Chinese journal which is unlikely to mention a U.S. brand name. =Axlq 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong: 101,000 287,000. Those names are massively documented and widely disseminated, and deserve disambiguation in our article. There was no name-calling; what you did, then admitted, was something called trolling. Badagnani 23:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, from my point of view, you were the one trolling with repeated re-addition of text that misrepresented the sources cited in it, and failing to use edit summaries to explain yourself.

Since when do google hits confer notability for the purposes of Wikipedia?

I ask again, can you propose some text? I am trying to be constructive. How about this:

Jiaogulan tea is also marketed in the United States by the trade names Panta tea or Penta tea, depending on the supplier.

That's a verifiable statement that wouldn't even require citation. And, that statement makes it clear that the brand names refer to the tea, not the plant itself or other products. What do you think? =Axlq 00:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is correct that the word "Panta" doesn't refer to the plant (though it is likely derived from the Latin name, as is "Penta"), as the recipe includes toasted rice and possibly also other ingredients. Panta Tea is notable in that it was on the market for years (possibly 10 years or more) before the jiaogulan craze hit the Western world. Its name, "Panta," is notable in that it's well known among "natural health" consumers and represents a likely latinization of a plant which has a cumbersome name in both Chinese and Latin (similar to the use of "goji" as a marketing term for the Chinese wolfberry (Lycium barbarum). Badagnani 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, fascinating. I'm American myself, and I knew of jiaogulan by the name jiaogulan; the first time I ever saw "Panta" or "Penta" was right here in this article. My book by Blumert and Liu (which was cited in the text I deleted) doesn't mention either name.

There's a craze? Except for my Chinese friends, nobody else I have met (at work or at liesure) has heard of this herb, and I tell many people because they ask me what's that stuff I bring to work every day to drink for lunch. Even my spouse (native Asian) hadn't heard of it until an herbalist introduced it to us.

Yes, obviously Penta and Panta are derivations from the Latin name, but I don't think we need to state that. Adding that factoid constitutes original research; let others reach the conclusion on their own.

I think your assertion of notability may be worth including if a source could be found to confirm it. Otherwise it should be enough to mention the two names and leave it at that.

Can you suggest any improvement to the statement I proposed above, or should we just add it to the article? Again, I apologize for my earlier tone; I was just getting very frustrated with you! I will note that we have gotten along in the past, back when I added all those names in other languages.[1]

=Axlq 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Tea

Based on my searching, the availability of this herb appears to be as a tea, although the article doesn't mention its use as a tea. So I added the categories Tea and Chinese Tea (and after trying this stuff, I must say it's probably the tastiest tea I know). I also removed the category Japanese Ingredients, because although it seems to be an ingredient sometimes, it doesn't appear to be notable or widely used in Japanese cuisine. -Amatulic 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good citations needed

Some of the citations in this article are atrocious. They give only an author and article title. There is no information about the publication, journal name, date, etc. Surely we can do better than this. I can't find some of the citations (like "Liu et al") probably because the original paper was written in Chinese. As given in this article, the citations are unverifiable. =Axlq 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Literal meaning of "jiaogulan"

I understand that the Wiktionary entries for the Chinese characters don't seem to support the translation "twisting vine orchid" for "jiaogulan". That translation came from p.12 of the book by Blumert and Liu cited in the references. My spouse (native Chinese speaker) also confirms that "lan" can mean "orchid". Maybe the Wiktionary definition needs changing? =Axlq 00:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of examples in Chinese of "sound borrowing," and it gets complicated. If Wiktionary is to be trusted (and it often isn't) the "lan" you added ("蓝") seems to refer to a variety of indigo, or the color blue (then again, sometimes in Chinese the word for "blue" can also mean "green" (as in 青). The simplified character for "orchid" is 兰, as in "Gailan" (Chinese broccoli) 芥兰, literally "mustard orchid." Badagnani 00:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

All I know right now is, the book in front of me translates "jiaogulan" as "twisting vine orchid". So either that source is wrong (possibly), or Wiktionary is wrong, or the Chinese character used in the lead section of this article is wrong. I don't know which. The native Chinese speaker/reader available to me is asleep at the moment; I'll talk to her about it later. =Axlq 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently collard greens translates as 羽衣甘蓝 (yuyi ganlan). Badagnani 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The interwiki link you just added also uses the characters the lead uses, so those characters are likely correct. Maybe 蓝 is a general suffix put on names of some green plants? I note just plain "broccoli" uses 蓝 as the final character too. =Axlq 01:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. Interesting that the family Cucurbitaceae links to zh:葫芦科, which means "gourd family" (葫芦科). Badagnani 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: Maybe 蓝 is a general suffix put on names of some green plants? No, in my opinion, it is denoting the plant itself. Maybe those plants all have a pungent smell in common due to mustard glycosides (same hot substance as in mustard oil, many cabbage varieties, radish, cress, wasabi etc.). So they do not necessarily have a similar appearance or even biological relationship, it could be one single characteristic (growth behaviour, roots used as a medicine, leaves, taste etc.).

From Chinese Medicine I know that Chinese often name plants more in a poetic than a descriptive way. Some plants are called after their medicinal uses (as in seven-leafed [for the] gallbladder), some after their appearance and taste (sweet creeper/vine tea-plant).

Jiaogulan is also called (Wiki Chinese) 五葉蔘 (five-leafed ginseng, 蔘 is a rare synonym to ginseng or ginseng-like medicinal roots)、七葉膽 (seven-leafed gallbladder/courage)，in Japanese it is called 甘蔓茶 (sweet creeper/vine tea-plant).

Orchid or cymbidium is usually written like this 蘭 (traditional) or 兰, lan2/lán (in Pinyin). 蓝 has exactly the same pronunciation, meaning blue; indigo plant (or other plants used for producing blue dye like dyer's woad); kohlrabi (pronounced differently: la5); Lan (as a Chinese surname) it is used in combination with other compositions such as

蓝 [la5] - kohlrabi 甘蓝菜 [gān lán cài] - cabbage; literally sweet indigo plant (or kohlrabi) vegetable/greens 靛蓝染料 [diàn lán rǎnliào] dyer's woad; literally "blue pigment + indigo plant + dye (=colouring substance)"

蓝色 [lán sè] - blue; literally blue-colored (the colour range however is not exactly congruent with the English concept of the colour blue. Similar to the different possible appearances of water, it could denote the whole range from blackish dark, navy blue, azure to bluish-green and turquoise. the exact color can be specified with a prefix like in English (e.g. dark blue, navy blue, sky blue etc.) 天蓝色 [tiān lán sè] - azure; literally sky-blue-colored 宝蓝 [bǎo lán] sapphire blue; literally gem/jewel blue 碧蓝 [bì lán] - dark blue; literally jasper (or jade)-blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.177.249 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical indication and possible dangers

"Studies have found it increases the activities of macrophages, T lymphocytes and natural killer cells and that it acts as a tumor inhibitor.[2]"

If so then it would not be recommended for people who suffer from a autoimmune disease.

And, or take drugs who surpress the overactive immune response, See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmunity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autoimmune_diseases

That's speculation. It would be nice to see a real source that said something one way or another about the interaction between jiaogulan and autoimmune disease. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

As long as there are essential informations missing on the source of this information these statement has no place in the article:

"It is known as an adaptogen and antioxidant and has been found to increase superoxide dismutase (SOD) which is a powerful endogenous cellular antioxidant. Studies have found it increases the activities of macrophages, T lymphocytes and natural killer cells and that it acts as a tumor inhibitor."

Name and article title are not (!) enough to refer to a source.

80.121.9.113 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

References

The solution is to find and fix the citation, not to delete the text from the article. I have seen that claim cited in reliable sources also, in a book about jiaogulan which I unfortunately no longer have (otherwise I'd fix the cite myself). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Actual reference is "Therapeutic effect of jiaogulan on leukopenia due to irradiation and chemotherapy". Zhong Guo yi Yao Xue Bao. 7 (2): 99. 1992. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help).

Unfortunately I can't find an online source. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

strange request for medical sources

On 15 Sept Ozzie... seems to have tagged 7 inline citations with 'medical source needed' but 5 of them seem unjustified as the citation does seem to be from a bio/medical journal. Not sure if Ozzie wants a different or secondary source but it seems excessive. - Rod57 (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored historical context

A wholesale deletion of content occurred a few days ago. The editor likely wanted to remove non-MEDRS sources. I restored the content on the grounds that non-MEDRS sources aren't prohibited for the purpose of describing in vitro or animal studies, and was reverted again.

That's fine, I have no problem with omitting those studies. However, I have restored the relevant historical context that had also been removed without explanation (this has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS). The points about longevity and the reputation the plant has in Asia as an "immortality herb" (which is obvious if you ever travel to Asia) shouldn't have been removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: take your own advice about WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, I reverted it, and now you are edit warring. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

When 'history' is based on 'reputed' reports based on misleading sources, it is not sufficiently encyclopedic to include; WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:NOTEVERYTHING.--Zefr (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zefr: What source did you find misleading?

• The phrases you removed from the lead "Jiaogulan is reputed to have powerful antioxidant and adaptogenic effects" is a factual statement. This "reputation" is the primary reason the plant is marketed, as a substitute for panax ginseng which has the same "reputation". The phrase "purported to increase longevity" is the primary reason the plant is notable, particularly in Asia, which anyone can verify simply by going there. The Blumert source cited for this, if you look at it, is a well-researched (albeit biased) piece of work, presenting historical context and then going too far by promoting in vitro and animal studies as human benefits. But as a source of historical information, it appears to be fine.
• Regarding the final clause you removed from the sentence "While Li Shizhen had confused jiaogulan with an analogous herb Wulianmei, in 1848 Wu Qi-Jun rectified this confusion in Textual Investigation of Herbal Plants, which also added more information on medicinal usage." You removed "which also added more information on medicinal usage" along with the citation for the entire sentence. This, also, is an historical fact. You claim that MEDRS is required for simply stating that a TCM practitioner 200 years ago included additional medicinal uses? That's nonsense.

~Anachronist (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

When the sources are based on and perpetuate pseudoscience and misinformation, such as 'adaptogen', 'powerful antioxidant', and longevity - none of which is factual - the article misleads the non-scientific user to believe jiaogulan has these properties. One could say the plant is notable as a member of the gourd family, and its relation to longevity is another example of misleading folklore. We can see what other editors say -- I suggest stating simply that it is used in folk medicine is sufficient, without giving specifics about the longevity nonsense. --Zefr (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We have an articles on adaptogen and antioxidant. Those articles explain clearly what is and isn't pseudoscience, which is why they were wikilinked in this article. Would you object if we include those terms with appropriate words about being unproven and pseudoscience? And the bit about longevity... well, that's a widely documented belief that is centuries old. It's pointless to say it's "used in folk medicine" without also providing the context about what it's used for. Simply stating that context in this article doesn't promote it, but it is unencyclopedic to omit it. Furthermore, the source you cited also indicates as much. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:FLAT - I suggest we avoid perpetuation of nonsense like adaptogen, jiaogulan as a 'powerful antioxidant', longevity herb, and miracle grass. This is information to be edited out and adhere to encyclopedic principles per WP:FRINGE. --Zefr (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. That doesn't mean we need to eliminate encyclopedic historical context, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Meta: this Wikipedia page is the subject of an academic paper

Note: I do not agree completely with the authors of this paper. Mainly, I disagree with the authors' positive view of non-science based medicine. However, it is very interesting, so I'm copying parts of it below.

@Zefr:, @Anachronist:, have you read this? What do you think about being heavily studied in this paper?

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0090/full/

Quotes from the article Our close reading had four stages. We began with a detailed analysis of the versions of the Gynostemma pentaphyllum article just before and after Zefr and Anachronist’s fight, as well as the most recent version of the article to date. Each version was analyzed independently to assess the bias lean of the article at the time. Then, the three versions were compared to determine the changes in content, tone and references that were made, and we noted some questions we had around those changes to take forward into the next stages of the analysis. Next, we analyzed the Gynostemma pentaphyllum Talk page discussion between Zefr and Anachronist about their edit war (Figure 3).

For our final stage, we followed the two editors beyond their war on the Gynostemma pentaphyllum page to other articles in the TCM topic area to observe if their editing behaviors were consistent beyond their interactions with each other.

In our case study we find that the senior editor Zefris heavily reliant on citing WP policies and guidelines. Zefr’s preferred policy to link is WP:MEDRS, or the “Identifying Reliable Sources (Medicine)” guidelines (Wikipedia, 2022d). He claims that any reference to the medicinal use of a plant or traditional technique, even in historical or cultural contexts, must be held to the standards for modern medical science sources.

It is difficult to challenge another editor who misuses and misrepresents WP policies and guidelines. An important observation from the Talk page (Figure 3) is that Zefr’s equally senior opponent, Anachronist, approaches the discussion with the intention of finding consensus through compromise. He attempts to work with an editor with opposing views to create a more balanced article. Anachronist shows this particularly in his opening comments: [quote of the talk page message above].

Then, there is a graph of Zefr's and Anachronist’s reverts, along with other more minor editors.

Anachronist makes another attempt to compromise near the end of the discussion when he suggests ways to address Zefr’s concerns that certain words are related to pseudoscience and would mislead readers: [quote]. ” However, Zefr is not interested in compromises: “WP:FLAT –..."

As experienced WP editors knowledgeable in WP policies and their uses, both Zefr and Anachronist follow an understanding of consensus that allows for only one view. Anachronist keeps to this idea of consensus even to the detriment of his view. He never suggests the option of having two opposing views in the article and instead focuses on editing to keep the parts of his view that Zefr can accept. Anachronist’s adherence to consensus gives support to Zefr’s argument and view, as it allows Zefr to insist on his viewpoint as the singular outcome.

Another policy of note that Zefr references is WP:FRINGE, which is also misused similarly to WP:NPOV.

We have found that one of Zefr’s revision strategies is to attack and remove references he does not agree with while adding references he can frame to support his edits. This strategy includes the removal and replacing of cited references, or even the cherry-picking of references or information from a reference to present a singular view. It is often supported by the misuse and misrepresentation of references, information, and WP policies. Thus, revision strategies around references are closely related to the linking of WP policies and guidelines we just discussed.

We also observed that interactions and pushback - or lack thereof - from other WP editors can greatly influence the success of strategically biased editing. On most pages he edits, Zefr attempts to erase all references to traditional uses and health benefits, citing WP:MEDRS or other reference issues to support wholesale deletion of information, sometimes even full sections of an article. In many cases, Zefr will make initial edits on a page and then monitor it. If he gets no pushback, he will make further, often larger, changes.

[Then, there is a word cloud of all the words Zefr and co. have deleted across Wikipedia.]

Both Zefr and Anachronist link to or cite WP policies and guidelines in their edits without much explanation of what section of the policy applies or explaining their interpretations. The main difference between their approaches appears to be that Anachronist tries to avoid revert wars and is willing to begin talk page discussions for issues that persist and to give more detailed explanations of his WP policy use if necessary, while Zefr avoids talk page discussions and is generally unwilling to engage in debate. Although Anachronist’s confidence in his use of WP policies usually allows him to successfully support his edits and reverts, his approach does not work with editors like Zefr.

Anachronist uses three main reasons for removing tags related to unreliable sources or a need for medical sources: (1) structural rules or guidelines for WP articles, (2) explaining why a reference is a reliable or acceptable source, and (3) using his own interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guideline.

The edit war between Zefr and Anachronist is a confrontation of two senior editors who are used to limiting pushback and successfully defending their revisions through their use of WP policy, just with different interpretations and approaches. The result is that both are required to make concessions they would usually avoid. This outcome is particularly disruptive for Zefr, because his approach is to completely silence opposing voices and that is not possible in these circumstances.

Although Zefr ends his part of the Talk page discussion without changing his position, an analysis of the continued edits of the “Gynostemma pentaphyllum” article throughout the discussion shows that Zefr was not completely successful in silencing opposing voices. Anyone reading the article version after Zefr and Anachronist’s fight (from revision 20:00 UTC, January 5, 2019), or the most recent version of the article (from revision 08:56 UTC, 16 May 2021), will find that the reference to the jiaogulan being described as an “immortality herb” by locals in southern China and northern Vietnam, which Anachronist was fighting to keep, is present. Zefr attempted to remove competing voices, but Anachronist managed to make another voice visible.

Chamaemelum (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Chamaemelum for that excerpt. I cannot view the full article because it's behind a paywall. It's curious that the article about our discussion above is far longer than our discussion itself.

I wasn't aware that Zefr and I had a "fight" as it is characterized. I consider Zefr a respected colleague with whom I have occasional professional disagreements.

Reading the excerpt, I get the impression that at least one of the authors had a bad experience on Wikipedia with one or both of us. There's kind of a petty tone to the whole thing.

I also think it is really bad form for academic authors to write about individuals without even a single attempt to reach out to us.

This was actually peer reviewed? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The authors position the discussion about the edits regarding Gynostemma pentaphyllum as a case study or "Qualitative methods" which they use throughout to illustrate findings. However, it's often just discussed without relevance to any particular finding, and over half of the article (and almost all of results section) is about Zefr/Anachronist (the introduction and methods doesn't mention Zeft/Anachronist). The "normal" part of the results section details how winning editors in an edit war threaten to get users banned more and make more article reverts. Yes, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal. (Also, my above quotes are different quotes from various sections of the article.)

Here is what they say about choosing to discuss Anachronist/Zefr:

Quote

Note that we refer to specific Wikipedians, Anachronist and Zefr, by their chosen WP usernames in this study. WP and its revision history are public material, as are its editors’ handles and actions on WP. Just as we do not anonymize named authors in large scale analyses of the scholarly literature because their identities are fundamental to understanding the analysis results, the same is true in the present case with respect to the editors on WP. While WP policy is strict when it comes to publishing the real-life identity of a Wikipedian against his or her will, its members’ usernames are considered public knowledge, and individual Wikipedians are considered important public figures with respect to their chosen WP handles in much the same way as scholars are in academia.

When reading it, I also considering the possibility that they had interacted previously with one of you on Wikipedia. Here is what they say about choosing you and Zefr:

Quote

"From the warring camps we identified, we selected a particular pair whose fights were significant but not overwhelming for a close examination. A visualization of the revert graph for the warring camps we discovered and the intensity of their mutual revert activity showed that both the structure and the size of almost all severe edit wars appeared prohibitively extensive and complex for a detailed qualitative investigation. One fight, however, stood out by being both intense and isolated from the rest of the revert graph, making it an ideal choice for our purpose here."

(In my opinion, the Zefr/Anachronist graph was not particularly intense relatively, and there were other isolated sections.)

Chamaemelum (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)