This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. China Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

the pubmed (.) org database notes that Butylidenephthalide is a chemical found at this plant that reduces neurodegenerative effects at glia PMID 23400915 also PMID 24416384

The article suggests that Angelica sinensis contains vitamin B12, with two supposed references. The first one lists Angelica as containing "0.25~40 mg/100g of vitamin B12" (whatever that means - even 0.25 mg of B12 would be a massive amount, considering that meats only contain a few micrograms per 100 g). That claim is not referenced, unlike most other stuff on that page.

The page seems quite suspicious anyway, with typos like "akaline" and "animo acid". I cannot access the second reference and it's not found on Google's cache or the Wayback machine. PubMed doesn't find anything with the query "angelica b12". I think the claim should be removed. I've never heard of a "normal" plant (e.g. not a mushroom, algae or fermented plant matter) that contains B12. And if Angelica sinensis really contained 100x the amount of vitamin B12 found in meat, it should be common knowledge.

DiamonDie (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Besides, the first reference does not seem like a reliable source. As for the w. article, in the same sentence that claims Angelica sinensis contains B12, it is also claimed that yeasts and spirulina containes B12, something which is not really true. There is no B12 in yeasts (unless fortified), and spirulina contains inactive B12 analogues which is of no use to humans and can even block absorption of real B12. I'm going to remove the whole sentence. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Dong quai.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Dong quai.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Viewmont Viking,

I have been working on pharmacology of Dong quai for past few weeks. I added some studied and trials which was done on rate models to show the recent indication of Dong quai. Most of my sources were PubMed article. I would greatly appreciate if you describe the reason you deleted all my edits?

Thank you, OoroofOoroof (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooroof Please read Medrs. While some of the articles may have met this standard, there were many from very dubious sources. Try adding them one at a time, which makes it easier for other editors to look at the edits. Just because something is in PubMed, does not mean it meets the standard required to add medical claims. VViking_TalkEdits 20:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fast respond. I do agree not everything in Pubmed do met the standard, but there are so many people using Dong quai due some indication that they just heard, so I tried to add some studied which has done on the rat models and provided some info that still need more human evidence based studies to prove the same indication for human. I am feeling they are so many studies have been done which is missing in this article for readers. Thanks OoroofOoroof (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Viewmont Viking, I am going to delete the pharmacology part since it is missing citation. It has medical claim of using for fatigue and high blood pressure but not providing any reference. I would try to edit it and provide some studies which has been done to support my edit. Thanks ooroof205.154.255.207 (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Angelica sinensis is now more commonly referred to as Dang Gui, based on the pinyin, over the Wade-Giles transliteration Dong Quai. The Wade-Giles system has become antiquated and the pinyin system is now more prevalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acuhealth (talk • contribs) 20:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 13:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Angelica sinensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041119180830/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=87 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=87
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905093932/http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/herbs/cangel.htm to http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/hort/herbs/cangel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731184658/http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/detail?lang=en&channelid=1288&searchword=herb_id=D00117 to http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/detail?lang=en&channelid=1288&searchword=herb_id=D00117
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130731193548/http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/outline?page=1&channelid=35734&searchword=%E7%95%B6%E6%AD%B8&sortfield=%2Bname_chi_sort&ispage=yes&trslc=50332398.1325071544.1 to http://libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/was40/outline?page=1&channelid=35734&searchword=%E7%95%B6%E6%AD%B8&sortfield=%2Bname_chi_sort&ispage=yes&trslc=50332398.1325071544.1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]