This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs a taxobox. Badagnani 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jiaogulan tea is also marketed in the United States by the trade names Panta tea or Penta tea, depending on the supplier.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Studies have found it increases the activities of macrophages, T lymphocytes and natural killer cells and that it acts as a tumor inhibitor.[2]"
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. [1]"
Name and article title are not (!) enough to refer to a source.
80.121.9.113 ( talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help).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)
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)
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)
Quote
|
---|
|
Quote
|
---|
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs a taxobox. Badagnani 23:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
Jiaogulan tea is also marketed in the United States by the trade names Panta tea or Penta tea, depending on the supplier.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Studies have found it increases the activities of macrophages, T lymphocytes and natural killer cells and that it acts as a tumor inhibitor.[2]"
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. [1]"
Name and article title are not (!) enough to refer to a source.
80.121.9.113 ( talk) 18:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help).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)
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)
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)
Quote
|
---|
|
Quote
|
---|
|