Talk:Hippophae

Merger proposal
It seems like Sea-buckthorn and Hippophae rhamnoides are two pages about the same thing and should be merged.217.159.198.172 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redirected Hippophae rhamnoides here, as it was almost just a stub. There were two uncited claims that I did not copy across, apart from that everything in that article is here. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The redirect seems to be not working (if I correctly understand the terms). I wanted to add and interlanguage link to Romanian on this page, and I cannot do it because the Romanian page is already linked to "Hippophae rhamnoides". This merger should be treated with higher priority (I guess). I would do it, if I had more experience. I prefer to avoid being famous for destroying Wikipedia :) Virolino (talk) 11:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Folk medicine?
I wanted to add a citation to wikipedia regarding possible "scientific" effects of Sea Buckthorn, but I am really finding this editing interface to be quite confusing when it comes to adding to the reflist. So anyway, here is a new citation lending support to its efficacy against Helicobacter Pylori. Someone who knows how to use this klunky thing can hopefully add it. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/wpr-578572 Btw, I went over to the German equivalent of this topic, to see how their editing interface works for adding citations, and it's a lot less of a confusing nightmare. Makes sense to me why a lot of the wikipedia articles are better and more in-depth when I read them from German wikipedia site rather than the English one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceremona (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I realize that so-called skeptics view alternative medicine as a primary target, but the following sentence to me reads as disingenuous:

"As no applications discussed in this section have been verified by Western science and sufficient clinical trial evidence, such knowledge remains mostly unreferenced outside of Asia and is communicated mainly from person to person, therefore falling into the category of folk medicine."

Take a look at a previous section that discusses what the plant contains. Sterols, carotenoids, vitamin C, vitamin E, minerals, amino acids, polyphenols. Unless the standard for all ostensibly reasonable skeptics is that any food must be a miracle pill, it seems to me that there is often scientific evidence for the efficacy and nutritional benefit of food constituents, and that we can apply some basic logic and extrapolation.

Human beings evolved to require certain nutrients, and these nutrients have specific proven benefits. A number of the constituents of this plant have clear scientifically proven value. But I realize that some skeptics are happy to dismiss anything not produced by the pharmaceutical industry and not proven to cure all of the ills of mankind as a mere sham. It gets tiresome to read though. Using some very basic logic one could assume that this food does have certain valid nutritional properties -- and if not this specific plant (with which I have little experience) then others that contain similar nutrients with scientifically proven properties. Folk medicine! Don't eat your broccoli, kids. It doesn't have a brand name on it. It's only "folk medicine"!

That's not to say that some marketers don't overhype certain supplements. But let's not go overboard in dismissing the obvious value of the nutrients that all human beings require to be completely healthy. It's harder to understand the chemistry of nutrition than the chemistry of your basic prescription drug, but if people ate more healthy stuff maybe they wouldn't need as many pharma-sponsored quick fix drugs -- which, by the way, we were NOT evolved to require, and which in some cases solve one problem while creating another.

Less cynicism about nutrition is all I ask. Nutrition is incredibly powerful, and if you care to look at the chemical machinations behind why this is so, you can often find them. This sort of cynicism about "folk medicine" I think is one reason so many people eat Big Macs and just pop heartburn meds or heart medication. That's a sham right there -- pharmaceutical industry 1, human health 0. Certainly foods that contain similar components would be part of a healthy diet that might preclude a person from having to take these "proven" pharmaceuticals in the first place. Are we not even allowed to mention such a thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.8.144 (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

how to grown the sea buckthorn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.160.33.85 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the scientific references in the "traditional medicine" section are analogous, as the are dealt with earlier in the 'potential health benefits section'... a substance that is considered 'traditional medicine' is redefined as 'conventional medicine' based on a scientific evidence base, this evidence base does not fall within the realm of 'traditional medicine'; traditional medicine's 'evidences base' is its folk tradition. 81.99.96.140 (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2012 Vardasnejonas (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)vardasnejonas How to the 'traditional uses' tally with what has been discover through double-blind scientific testing?Vardasnejonas (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)vardasnejonas

Etymology
It grows on the land. Why is it SEA-buckthorn?77Mike77 (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was wondering that too, which is why I came to the article. My guess is that since it is salt-resistant it is often found on coasts --> by the sea.  It seems a good guess, but it is only a guess.202.179.19.27 (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Questions
Hello everybody, I was modifying the article about sea buckthorn with the Latin title when I noticed that this article exists. You can see the article I created on the talk page of that page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippophae_rhamnoides Do you think it is possible to fuse both article. I think it is a bit confusing to have both. As your article is much more complete, I propose to include my part about agriculture and cultivation here. Can you say me what you think about this? Thank you very much Best regards Coraline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralinepraz (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One article is about a group of sea buckthorns which includes seven species, the other article is about one of those seven species. I think it is appropriate to have the two distinct articles.  Deli nk (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this plant considered invasive in the U.S.? Tinako97 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be considered as an invasive species as defined in agriculture or ecology, but it grows aggressively via suckers and is difficult to harvest due to its numerous long sharp thorns. Here is a Canadian government article. --Zefr (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Germination from frozen seeds
Does seed germinate if fruit is frozen? IE- state that when the branch is frozen and fruit collected, then the seed can germinate if the fruit is thawed and seed removed and planted (IF CORRECT?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikkme (talk • contribs) 09:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This UK reference describes Hippophae seeds as "orthodox" having capability for germination after years of frozen storage. The seeds need to be separated from the fruit and dried before storage. The document provided on that page appears to be a thorough guide for storing and germinating seeds from a variety of trees. --Zefr (talk) 02:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Cultivation in Iran
An unregistered user provided these two references as evidence of greenhouse and field cultivation in Iran. --Zefr (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahani H, Jalilvand H, Vaezi V. Greenhouse Treatments on Elaeagnus rhamnoides Seed Germination. Res J of Environ Sci. 2014;8(4):215-224.
 * Ahani H, Jalilvand H, Vaezi J, Sadati SE,. Investigation of nursery treatments on sea buckthorn (Elaeagnus rhamnoides (L.) A. Nelson) seed germination in the field. J Biodivers Environ Sci. 2014;(6)4:18-8.

Sorry
I started working this over and stalled out... will resume! Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hippophae. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/species/sea-buckthorn
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1198782587774&lang=eng
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528115820/http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin185.pdf to http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin185.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://jammuandkashmirupdate.com/news/newsdetail%20128.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/prog/shelterbelt-brisevent/pspver5-e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225154101/http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/books/books/9780660190075.html to http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/books/books/9780660190075.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528115820/http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/speccrop/publications/documents/seabuckthorn_may2001.pdf to http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/speccrop/publications/documents/seabuckthorn_may2001.pdf

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) 07:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

H. salicifolia way taller according to online sources
the Hippophae salicifolia is described as "up to 1m" tall in the article, but most online sources show and describe a 8-15m tree. 178.10.118.196 (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)