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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Drug Policy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Drug PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Drug PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Drug PolicyDrug Policy articles
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.
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
otherPapaverspecies, "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)reply
Oppose, per
Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Scientific_versus_common_names: "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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
The flower of an opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) in three stages of development. From left to right, the bud, the flower, and finally the seed capsule. The plant is used to derive
opium and
poppy seeds. The Latin
botanical name means the "sleep-bringing poppy", referring to the sedative properties of some of the
opiates—
narcotics derived from opium.Photo:
Joaquim Alves Gaspar
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)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Papaver somniferum. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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).
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)reply
"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
Czech Blue Poppy seeds (food safe cultivars)Czech blue poppy (food safe)
There's a way to ask authors to provide reliable sources by adding the citation needed 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 citation needed.
Senor Cuete (
talk)
13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
There is no consensus based on
WP:CON. It seems you and
Mojeagro 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)reply
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)reply
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.