Talk:Papaver somniferum

External links and such

'I have to critique the last revert'. Stated reason for reversion is "Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links." The linked to website Opiophile's Papaver somniferum Forum as far as I can tell is quite NON-commercial. As for calling it a private website, it looks to be a source of public information as far as I can see. As for 'mere collection of external links', I see that the wikipedia encyclopedia article has a external link to shopperpedia which is little more than a wiki with links to a commercial vendor (zebo.com). The shopperpedia link neither bothers me nor offends me and neither does the opiophile.org link. The article External_links in its guidance on what sites *should* be linked to states '6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.' which I would say applies to this site. Originally this external link might qualify relative to guidance on what sites *should not* be link to per "2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.'. As someone who has never visited and is not associated with this site, I hereby choose to add said site back. It appears to be a useful and informational site covering a topic (opium) which the world is in great need of more information about (I'd rather people know about it, whether for ill or benefit). Thank you for your time. Thane Eichenauer 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Commercial is when a service or a product is being sold, and i'm sure the forum didn't do any of the previous. --78.86.117.164 13:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Assent

I posted the original edit adding the site to the article and many other opiate related articles. I personally have yet to find a better site where there is an ongoing, open exchange about opiates. I have found more than several bits of information on that site that I couldn't have found anywhere else. Also, the site has deterred myself and many other users from the more dangerous methods of administration of certain opiates(ingesting the gel in a fentanyl patch, for example). Overall, I challenge someone to find a site at least as informative before reverting. 63.254.142.215 (talk · contribs)

I have replied on your talkpage. JFW | T@lk 07:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Said reply on above referenced talkpage is "The aim is that Wikipedia becomes the best opiate-related information resource. I do not see what inserting this link in 30 articles does towards that goal. JFW | T@lk 07:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)" jfdwolff still fails to provide a reason why the link should be excluded. Perhaps it is most appropriate in article opium, but from the handful of articles I reviewed, including morphine it appears as though a connection to a topic appropriate page was made. Perhaps 30 links is too many but I also posit that 0 links is 1 too few. I'm not going to do any further reverting at the moment but I still think jfdwolff has gone too far in attempting to expunge what I have pointed out is a non-commercial external link (at last on its face) which is what the template text states (in part). Just because jfdwolff don't see what the value in adding the link doesn't mean I (or perhaps even others) don't feel it isn't a positive improvement. Thane Eichenauer 08:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thane, I have a very low threshold for removing links if the editor does NOTHING on Wikipedia but adding links. So far I've been right almost every time. This time we're not even talking about an informational page. We're talking about a forum of recreational users. That is about the lowest informational resource one can choose about opium poppies. We could have linked to a spectroscopic analysis of its alkaloids, or the demographics of their farming in Afghanistan, or a brief review of mental changes in response to smoking opium. But no, we have to link to a page of recreational users (I can think of several more POV and rude terms). We need to be selective with what we link to. JFW | T@lk 17:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification needed

We need a clarification as to whether poppy seeds used in foods and spices are indeed of the Papaver somniferum species in order to be included in this article. Otherwise those seeds are just general poppy seeds and should be in the poppy article instead. I am also doubtful that common poppy plants found in the garden and nursery are actually Papaver somniferum as oppose to the other species in the genera. I think in reality people are confused that the red poppies symbolised for war rememberance are Papaver somniferum. That is not to say red poppies do not contain opiates. --Kvasir 06:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those are indeed somniferum. It's the only poppy which produces edible seeds. 75.35.211.238 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it grown today?

Years ago, I had a summer job picking opium poppies in Tasmania, Australia. Most production is done by Tas Alkaloids (a subsiduary of Johnson and Johnson) which has some sort of arragement with farmers to use their feilds. Apparently they have a harvester that picks the poppies that go into drugs, but the poppies that are used for seed are picked by hand. This was certainly the case 5-10 years ago, I know they were trying to make a harvester that could harvest seed of as high a quality as human pickers.

So, I know Tasmania produces a fair proportion of the world's licit opium poppies. I'm wondering if anyone has references for where other licit poppy production occurs, and if this should be included in the article. It would be great to have a map that shows where legal and illegal poppies are grown for drugs.

--UnnamedGent 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ornamental cultivation

I note that the Ornamental cultivation section seams to contain the old myth that extracting a psycoactively useful form of the active alkcoloids is an overly time consuming task to consider being attempted by the average garderner, while this is true if one wishes to obtain raw opium this is true, however the pods fresh or dried can be crushed and infused in boiling water, resulting in an bitter tasteing aqueous solution (due to the bitter taste of the opiate chemicals themselves) containing an active quantity of psycoachtive opiates (I am not certain if wikipiedia is the best place to openly publish the exact method for doing this, It can be found online if people wish easiliy enough) perhapes cite the book "Opium for the Masses: A Practical Guide to Growing Poppies and Making Opium" by Jim Hogshire ISBN 1559501146 for the verification? 212.159.54.243 02:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If you think that information is relevant to the topic and you have a reliable source for it, then please go ahead and add it. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph makes the claim that poppy seeds intended for consumption are derived from low morphine varieties. I think this needs a ref- I've never heard anything like that and it seems strange as the seeds are already very low in opiate concentration. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 17:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice

Can someone tell me the best way to grow poppies for ornament Is it best to prune the seed heads when they have finished flowering to encourage a second flowering or wait until the plant has finished and then cut i down as Monty Don suggests which should then result in a second flowering. If you do this is it possible to dry the first seed pod to scatter the seeds later? What is the best method of drying so the seeds will grow?

I have been letting the flowers dry in the ground then saving the seed pods and scattering them when they are dry.

Any suggestions?

Poppy lover

This is a talk page. Please do not discuss matters here that do not pertain to improving the article. Try poppies.org or do a web search to find the information you want. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 09:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect image removed

The following image:

is a picture of the capsule of Papaver orientale. Need to find image of ripening capsule of Papaver somniferum to replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaypc (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Added two new images including one image of Papaver somniferum capsule. --Jaypc —Preceding comment was added at 15:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge with White Poppy

The white poppy and the opium poppy are the same species. The only difference between the two articles is that the white poppy article only discusses the political usage while the opium poppy article ignores the political usage and discusses everything else. The logical conclusion is to merge. Neelix (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• According to this site several species of poppy can be white. The red poppies worn for Remembrance Day symbolize the Corn Poppies (not Opium Poppies) that grew on World War I battlefields in Europe. Perhaps White Poppy should be merged into Poppy#Symbolism. -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 02:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I could see a merge into Poppy#Symbolism (although I'm not sure whether that would be better than keeping it separate) but it seems like a poor fit for Opium Poppy. Kingdon (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The "white poppy" movement doesn't seem to have anything to do with any particular real plant. Looking at Poppy#Symbolism, it could be merged there; but since it's really about a political movement, I'm not too keen on such a merger. Mangoe (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Opium = drug, white = peace. Merger is inappropriate unless the "Opium poppy" article name is changed to be more generic. nirvana2013 (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Why not merge poppy seed with opium poppy as a subsection. An poppy seed comes from an opium poppy and both article have an ostenseively same sections dealing with food. --RossF18 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think merging the poppy seed content to that article makes sense and leaving a disambiguation link for that section. I think there's enough distinct content to support a separate article. But maybe I'm wrong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. One article is about the botanical plant and the other one is about dishes which use poppy seed, a quite big one too. That article will be developed further and will be expanded much more, at the monent is not complete. Merging it into this article will stop its further expansion.

And this article will be to long. Most articles about plants only mention briefly the culinary use, they can not go into detais like a other article about dishes. Warrington (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused, but given that poppy seed comes from opium poppy, shouldn't at least some merge takes place. And if you check the food section of the poppy seed article and the food section of this article, aside from the few extra paragraphs in the poppy seed article, the two sections are identical to opium poppy's food section. And the article's title is not "Food dishes derived from opium poppy." It's just called "Poppy seed" so I don't think you can just claim that "One article is about the botanical plant and the other one is about dishes which use poppy seed." If it's truly about the food only, the "FOOD" should figure somehow in the title. And it seems like the Food section in the opium poppy article is the largest section as well. That is unless I'm totally missing something here and opium poppy is in fact different from poppy seed in which case there should be some major changes to the poppy seed article's food section. --RossF18 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No you are not confused, :) poppy seed comes from opium poppy. Maybe this article shoul be called Poppy seedd and poppy seed dishes or Food dishes derived from opium poppy, or something like that... because it is that what it it is. This article will be expanded more in the future (I also have plans for it, and merging both into one may result i : {{verylong}}

Cheers

Warrington (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Peanut butter is made from peanuts, yet there is a separate article. Poppy seeds have independent notability and I think there is enough notability and content to support a separate article. It's not just about the food. It also includes other uses and I hope you'll expand on the coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you are right. And there are other seeds with separate articles, like Lotus seed, Sunflower seed and Pumpkin seed, widespread edible seeds för the same reason.

Warrington (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Warrington, how can you be so wise on poppy seeds yet insist on using that strangely colored photo on the Hankfrussler Wunderklasserhammenstein article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a big poppy seed fan, really I am.

Warrington (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

us laws are nothing short of genocide.

the US would like everyone to eradicate the poppy - the deliberate extinction of a species is genocide - when it ought to be addressing the problems that send people toward drugs. and considering that drugs have been used in every culture, largely ceremonially, it says something about us, doesn't it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.92.28 (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis in the Holy Scriptures says ALL PLANTS WITH SEED IS FOOD

It would be nice if it were legal to grow and sale Opium as food because it is a supressed food. The first book of the Holy Scriptures in Genesis says YEHOVAH God gave man all plants bearing seed as FOOD. That is right OPIUM is a gift from YEHOVAH God to man as a FOOD. It should be legal to grow and consume. 99.102.64.86 (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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"...)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 on 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)