Talk:Papaver somniferum

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved: 4:2 majority after 16 days, last discussion was 7 days ago. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Opium poppy → Papaver somniferum – Papaver somniferum should be the title (name) of this article with "Opium Poppy" used as a redirect, not the other way around.

Why is it that almost every plant is listed by it's binomial name and this one gets special treatment? Cannabis sativa doesn't have it's title set to "Marijuana Cannabis" or "THC Cannabis".

Adding vernacular names as titles (especially ones that have drug references in them), seems to encourage vandalism and useless edits. Opium has it's own page. Poppy seed has it's own page. Poppyseed oil has it's own page. Every Papaver species has it's name listed by binomial nomenclature, except poor old P. somniferum. Can we leave Opium out of the title & be a bit more scientifically accurate/botanist minded about the article?

In addition, P. somniferum is grown more for pharmaceuticals, culinary purposes and ornamental purposes in most countries. The cultivation of P. somniferum for opium is somewhat minimal in present-day. As stated in the formal move request, small amounts of opiates have been found in other Papaver species, "Opium Poppy" could refer to these species as well, making the current article title inaccurate and over-encompassing, though the article itself is specific to P. somniferum. "Morphine poppy" would be more appropriate, as Papaver somniferum's notoriety for it's high morphine content is it's only distinguishing characteristic from non-somniferum Papaver species containing opiates. Thus, making the article seem either slightly obsolete, or encouraging education of the raw-form drug's existence beyond the precedents set by other, similar Wikipedia articles about plants that contain psychoactive alkaloids and compounds. (e.g. Lactuca virosa's title isn't "Opium Lettuce"...) relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC) FrostyCee (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Support per WP:TITLE "the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles". 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support per Naming_conventions_(flora): "For example, it is acceptable to have separate articles on a grape (an edible fruit) and Vitis vinifera (the plant species that most commonly yields grapes). When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name." Opium has a separate page, so the decsion to treat them separate has already been done. 216.69.46.40 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Naming_conventions_(flora): "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. Rose, Coffee, Rice. These exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion towards consensus." I submit that this plant has major political, agricultural, and economic presences, and therefore should reside at the common name. ENeville (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Powers T 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, per the paragraph directly after what (ENeville) quoted at Naming_conventions_(flora): "Note that it is often possible to distinguish between plant taxon and plant product, and in those cases it is not necessary to treat both in a single article." I submit that this plant's major uses are already represented in the Opium and Morphine articles and therefore Opium Poppy should indeed be changed to Papaver somniferum. "Opium poppy" should redirect to the same article. 74.128.192.155 (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that in this case the separation of the topic of the product splits off all the social significance of the plant. The plant is grown ornamentally, for example.  Also, the article has a section on the presence of the topic in popular culture, as a plant growing naturally and from seed, not just as a product.  Furthermore, there is a significant section on the legality of growing the plant, separate from possessing the product.  These argue for the social significance of the plant itself, separately from the product. You can plant Papaver somniferum, but wind up with a whole bunch of consequences imposed on you because it's an opium poppy to the neighbors, the courts, the local warlords, and so on. ENeville (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is your position, then I would reason that this article needs to be split into two articles. One based on the cultural significance, and one specifically for the taxon. Per #2 @ Plant article naming conventions. "(A) separate page(s) with the botanical description(s) of the taxa involved, using the scientific name, is preferred."FrostyCee (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ENeville. The opium poppy -- the plant, not the product -- has far more global significance than as just another taxon.
 * Support Comparing the common name's signifigance to "just another taxon" is irrelevant, as the Wikipedia standard says we should only compare to uses "in some other field than in botany". This plant mainly has notable uses outside botany that can be covered in the Opium article. Excluding all info that can-be/has-been separated out into the Opium article, what's left if is predominately botany, including ornamental growing.  It's already been split per the WP standard and so this article must be at its scientific name.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Papaver flower.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Papaver flower.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 10, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 21:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Growing conditions
I'm not seeing anything about its ordinary growing conditions. My guess is semi-arid, but I haven't found any source that says one way or another. Dismalscholar (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Growth habit
There is no mention in this article as to whether this plant is annual, perennial or biennial (it is annual, apparently). Perhaps too much effort has been spent trying to maintain neutrality concerning the narcotic alkaloids present than on actually describing the species. Shouldn't a description of the plant the primary focus of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.101.107 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Papaver somniferum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090729120251/http://www.regional.org.au:80/au/asa/2001/news.htm to http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/news.htm#P54_6133

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Quinto Simmaco (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Laudanum
The article needs a link to Laudanum somewhere.

Apparently bogus source removed
The claim that most available cultivars are high in opium seems very questionable. Worse yet, the source that was cited seems very dubious. The link is dead and was archived twice in 2015 by the Internet Archive. See for yourself how dubious this information appears to be based on the low quality of the source. The source's information, which is presented as assorted vague supposition, is also very old (2006).

https://web.archive.org/web/20150402164716/http://www.opiumpoppies.org/faq/introduction/how-potent-are-the-major-culinary-spicerack-varieties-such-as-mccormick/
 * Yes, that's a bad source. The sentence on relative morphine content is questionable, having no source. --Zefr (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Destructive reverts, edit warring by Zefr
The Sujata type's lack of latex production was already present in the article. It is not necessary to post additional citations to establish that it does not produce latex. Grammatical improvements, such as the fact that poppyseed is a single word not "poppy seed", poppies plural is poppies not poppy, and "the" needs to be used in English to refer to "the opium poppy" have nothing to do with Zefr's justification for reversion. Zefr needs to prove why inferior grammar must be present in this article. Pidgin-type references to this plant may be common in casual speech but they are not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. The statements about ornamental varieties being able to be cultivated without legal problems related to opium production are already present in the article. The cited concepts underlying the statements related to the problems of identification are also already clearly present elsewhere in the article. Zefr should read the article instead of blithely reverting such changes. One of the worst aspects of Wikipedia is the arbitrary nature of reversion-happy editors. One will put a great deal of effort into articles and find that that effort sticks and, if merely unlucky, find everything blithely reverted in others — or even in the same article. It all depends upon chance. That is not the basis for creating and maintaining a high-quality product. It's easier to destroy than to create and, unfortunately, many who "contribute" to Wikipedia get their jollies from power plays involving the destruction of quality content. It makes people less and less willing to invest their time and energy into the Wikipedia product.
 * Beginning here, you made several content changes, adding seemingly authoritative edit summaries, without once citing a source, a case of original research as defined by WP:OR: "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I mentioned OR in my edit summary. You made an issue of changing "poppy seed" to "poppyseed", but poppy seed is the Wikipedia article; other grammatical changes were minor, in my opinion. The article has been further improved since by this edit. --Zefr (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "other grammatical changes were minor, in my opinion". That doesn't justify their reversion. You made the effort to revert just for one grammar change before. Now, you're claiming the many changes I made to improve the grammar since then are so unimportant that it was okay for you to wipe them all out, without trying to justify it? How convenient. Poppyseed is just one of the changes to the grammar, too. Poppy is referred to erroneously in the singular multiple times, as in casual speech. The article "the" is missing multiple times as well. These are not minor issues. They make the article seem poorer in quality because they are not prestige English. Wikipedia is not supposed to be written in vernacular. As for sourcing, the sources of many of the changes are in this very article. Should you read it and comprehend it you would see that. The Sujata poppy's lack of latex is right there in the article, for instance. It makes no sense to claim that it's an "allegation" or "original research" to point out that it's not possible to produce drugs from that variety. It's not possible because the latex is the source of the alkaloids. Perhaps you might take some time to learn about this subject before trying to manage it.
 * I can see that destroying more content, also, is now the go-to response for the power trip. Pathetic display, especially considering that sourced material was wiped out, including an article in the WASHINGTON POST. Let me guess, the Washington Post isn't a good enough source anymore... I have also noticed that the New York Times was also cited in this "poorly-sourced" section. The Washington Post and the New York Times aren't credible sources, now? Fascinating.

Czech blue poppy seeds as food
These two images with no WP:SECONDARY sources of their supposed Czech origin or use as food were removed for discussion. --Zefr (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There's a way to ask authors to provide reliable sources by adding the template. As far as I know, this is never applied to images. Foreign languages may not be preferred but they are acceptable as reliable sources. These images should stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article already has a picture of blue poppy seeds used in food decoration. A secondary source saying the Czech images are valid is needed if these are to stay. --Zefr (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What type of secondary source is used to validate images? Also an editor added the images. You reverted them. I re-added them twice. You have violated the three-revert rule - edit warring. Also you need to read about WP:OWN. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that these images are of blue poppy in the Czech Republic? They could be from anywhere blue poppy grows. A secondary source for the origins of the images - such as a news or botanical story - would provide this. WP:BRD is a cycle encouraging improvement of the information. With my reverts, I'm saying there isn't enough evidence to identify the background, the requirement by WP:RS. --Zefr (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that these images are NOT from the Czech Republic? Secondary sources are preferred but NOT REQUIRED by Wikipedia. Primary sources are allowed - like all of the other images. I don't see where "a news or botanical story" is cited to provide any evidence to support any of the other images except the one in the info box. Using this criterion they should all be deleted. What's the difference? Very few images on Wikipedia can be verified as a reliable source - only a few of them from historical sources. Also these images are high-quality and improve the article. These images don't say in their caption that they are from the Czech Republic - only that they are the Czech Blue poppy, which is obviously true. Where are these identified as from the Czech Republic? You and I must be reading a different article. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the name "Czech blue" supposed to signify? Is it a cultivar name, so these are the seeds of Papaver somniferum 'Czech Blue'? Or is it something else?
 * The image doesn't need a source as an image . If it's accompanied by a claim that amounts to "seeds that look like these are safe to eat" then it does. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's a cultivar of P. somniferum and there's no claim that the seeds are safe to eat. All poppy seeds are safe to eat. There's a claim that these are cultivated for food - not opium. It's tagged with a . Senor Cuete (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems that a consensus has been reached (at least as much as it ever is on Wikipedia) that the images can go in the article. I propose to add them back and leave the text with the citation needed template. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus based on WP:CON. It seems you and are the only ones wanting the images, whereas equal counterweight has been provided. I see no justification at this stage for including them. --Zefr (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not true - the original editor and the two of us think that they can stay. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The two of us have pointed out that the reasons you gave for deleting them are entirely spurious and so I will add them back. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, I forgot Peter Coxhead as well. Four against one for inclusion. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No commercial links on Wikipedia
The rules are absolutely clear - no spam on Wikipedia. The links I removed were WP:REFSPAM. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:ADMASK, WP:PROMOTION and the template { {refimprove-spam} }. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Agricultural Cultivation (Growth Development, Weed Management), Diseases and World market share
Hello we are a group of Agricultural Science and Environmental Science students from ETH of Zurich and would like to make some changes in the wiki page of papaver somniferum within the next weeks. Firstly we think that the Varieties section could be greatly improved. Secondly we'll add general information about Agronomic parameters of p. somniferum cultivation regarding Growth Development, weed management and potential occurring diseases and their management. Finally, we'll introduce additional infos about the world production and market share of poppy.

We'll happy to hear what you think about these suggestions.

Bests,

Poppy Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zngameni (talk • contribs) 10:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)