Talk:Artemisia annua

message: Does anyone have a reference indicating human toxicity, parts of the plant, and in what concentrations? — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Toxicity 

message: The article gives the Chinese name "青蒿; pinyin: qīnghāo" but the link to the Chinese WP leads to an article named "黄花蒿（学名：Artemisia annua)".I think the Chinese characters 黄花蒿 are pronounced "huanghuahao". Furthermore, when I search for "青蒿" in the Chinese WP I get still another article, where the scientific/ binomial name of 青蒿 qinghao is given as "Artemisia carvifolia", which I didn't find elsewhere. 
Could someone with sufficient knowledge in English, Chinese and biology please clarify this discrepancy?
Baltshazzar (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , this name starts from some mistakes made in ancient traditional chinese medicine catalogs which gave two names for the same species, with the name "青蒿" being better-documented for its medical uses. Later the name 青蒿 is assigned to "Artemisia carvifolia". --Artoria2e5 contrib 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese name 

message: What does the second sentence refer to?  What is TCN?  This is likely a non-sequitur.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loki-dog (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "TCM", not "TCN", is explained in the first sentence – traditional Chinese medicine. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folk medicine section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Artemisia annua. 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/20170525105020/http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf to http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says both "The efficacy of tea, made with either water or urine and A. annua, for the treatment of malaria is dubious, and is discouraged by the World Health Organization (WHO)" and "Although WHO recommends artemisinin-based remedies for treating uncomplicated malaria, artemisinin resistance has become a concern". So, the WHO both recommends and discourages this? The source cited for the former assertion is an abstract that doesn't confirm it, and I'm not going to pay to access the full paper, but another source does make this assertion. The sourced cited for the latter assertion supports it. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not necessarily a conflict, artemisinin is simply the main active compound in the plant but it's concentration in the plant varies depending on many factors same goes for the effectiveness of administering it. It is also a pretty strong way of putting it that might not even be entirely correct. The WHO simply doesn not promote non-pharmaceutical administration of the plant as opposed to it's pharmaceutical form. I personally find it rather dubious that the author of that sentence used a secondary source on the stance of the WHO instead of basing it on a document of the WHO. Rastanarcharismarx (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information on WHO position on use for malaria