Talk:Opium

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Merge from Smoking

I am suggesting merging a section from the article Smoking to here. Any discussions about this should take place here.

Naacats 22:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone for or opposed to this? We need at least a minimum consensus on the matter Naacats 04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements gone feral

Hmmm... here's a philosophical question. A recent editor sourced the statement about the winged deity in a bas-relief from the palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud to two reputable sources: [1] [2]. The comic part is that these sources are both copied precisely from the old version of this article, including the original unsourced statement. Eventually, if I can stop snickering, I should try to decide what to make of that. Mike Serfas 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this doesn't mean the universe is about to collapse on itself ;) --Daniel11 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry guys I removed it before implosion ;) I can hopefully replace some of the weaker sources in this article with good sources (i.e. Medical and Archaeological Journals) as I have access to them. I have access to most scientific journals so if there is one you know of specifically that could be of use let me know.--Iosef ^{U T C} 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - you've been doing good editing, and I have a wishlist. ;) Especially, I'd like to get in more detailed information about the Yongzheng Emperor's 1729 ban - was it only a ban on madak smoking, or did it prohibit domestic Chinese opium production? I'm guessing that opium became a high value commodity for the British to trade because it was banned, and that some aspect of the British trading concession or extraterritoriality gave them a loophole - is that true? If Arab traders brought opium to China in 400 A.D., why were they importing it in 1729 anyway? I've seen mention of the British "preferring" to trade opium rather than silver - what were the relative values of these products from the sellers' point of view? Also, there was a brief mention of "drastic penalties" for Chinese users but what were they? Was it definitely the first ban on opium in the world? I'll get back to a good library eventually but thanks if you beat me to it. Mike Serfas 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can dig up.--Iosef ^{U T C} 02:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The last word on Ashurnasirpal

For years this article contained an unsourced statement which in my opinion really wasn't very nice. "At the Metropolitan Museum's Assyrian relief gallery, a winged deity in a bas-relief from the palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud, dedicated in 879 BC, bears a bouquet of poppy capsules on long stems, described by the museum as "pomegranates". Early versions even said "prudishly" described as pomegranates! It was unsourced, but perhaps people felt they had to leave it in - it was once the only mention in the article of any ancient use of opium. Well, for the record, I found the museum with a quick Web search, [3] wrote up their help desk and asked what they had to say. In a few days I received a response from Kim Benzel, the assistant curator, admitting that there was always room for debate on interpreting highly stylized bas-reliefs, and both plants were known to the Assyrians, but they generally more closely resemble pomegranates, which are better represented in iconography of the period. She suggested further reading on the topic:

• Curtis, John E., and Julian E. Reade, eds. Art and Empire: Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. Exhibition catalogue. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1995.
• Kuhrt, Amélie. The Ancient Near East c. 3000-330 BC, vol. 2, From c. 1200 B.C. to c. 330 B.C.. London: Routledge, 1995.
• Reade, Julian E. Assyrian Sculpture. 2d ed. London: British Museum Press, 1998.

While there may be some interesting possibilities here for original research, I see no reason to doubt her expert opinion. Wikipedia owes the museum an apology for this slur against its integrity. Mike Serfas 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did opium addiction become a problem after more than 5900 years of uneventful use?

This is the question that I'd like to see answered most of all. There are countless descriptions of the addictiveness of opium dating from the last three centuries, but before then, I'm not finding them. During the Islamic Renaissance, it was apparently a drug available to poor people who couldn't afford to go to the doctor - without causing social disruption. During the Roman Empire it was widely known and used medically, but one reference I found guessed that there was little if any hedonistic use or addiction. I think there must be many more sources that weigh in on this issue that can be added. But perhaps the explanation is among the interesting biochemistry and evolutionary biology still hidden in the poppies. Mike Serfas 03:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So far my thoughts focus on two points. As now described in the article, for some time the Chinese purchasers regarded their domestic opium as "inferior" and paid twice as much for opium from India. Also, a few scientific articles (PMID 16807881, PMID 15507371, PMID 16182480) suggest that Papaver rhoeas extract can interfere somehow with the development of morphine addiction. I'm tempted to speculate that Papaver somniferum was artificially selected for maximum potency at some time between the introduction of poppies to China (600-1200) and when addiction to Indian opium was observed (1700), and that perhaps such selection not only increased the fraction of alkaloids made up by morphinans, but also decreased the level of a beneficial antagonist or weak agonist of opioid receptors. But is there any evidence to support this? Mike Serfas 05:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

American fortunes

While trying to tighten the history of prohibition in China, I decided the list with the three Americans who made fortunes on opium really doesn't belong. (John Jacob Astor, James Grant Forbes, Warren Delano, Jr.) I know this is a contentious point (see Talk:Opium/Archive 1), but the problem is that if the Americans are listed surely a larger number of British subjects should be listed, and if they're listed that's quite a bit of space to give to a list of names without context, even before you start listing famous grandchildren. This information definitely should be featured prominently in the individual biographies of these people. If you can cite a source that says "Lots of prominent American politicians including X,Y, and Z owe their upper-class status to dope-dealing ancestors" then that would be a good thing to have in the article, but otherwise what we have is just an arbitrary subset of a long list. Mike Serfas 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

At WT:PHARM#Opium_and_Apolipoprotein_A1 some time ago, Fvasconcellos suggested putting this article up for peer review. I delayed doing this until I'd fixed some of the obvious flaws, but it's getting near time for wider input.

As a preliminary I've put the automated script review output at Talk:Opium/autopeerreview for reference. Mike Serfas 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. At this time all the automatic peer review points are satisfied, except for "Can't" in a book title and the undisputed need for a thorough copy edit. Of course, real reviewers may not be so easy. Mike Serfas 03:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days for GA status. Though I am obviously not finished, at first glance, the article looks like it's in excellent shape, and GA status shouldn't be too hard to obtain. There's a couple of minor issues that you might want to begin fixing now:

• Make sure section and subsection headers are in compliance with WP:MSH - while this isn't a huge GA issue, and some inconsistencies are acceptable, some of them are kind of long, and should be reduced or paraphrased for easier readability in the TOC.

• The 'see also' section is quite long, and can very likely be reduced. Links to articles that are already mentioned elsewhere in the text (in prose, or in 'see also' or 'main article' links attached to previous sections, should not appear in the 'see also' section at the end).

• The references for the most part look fine.

• Recommend changing the title of the 'bibliography' section to 'further reading' so that's the book listings are not confused with references citing information in the text. This is consistent with the manual of style.

• The 'external links' section is a bit long, and could probably be pruned. It might help to review WP:EL for guidelines on pruning this list. Links to sites like erowid.org are generally discouraged, as its content is more focused on subjective illicit "experiences" than actual scientific fact and information (an interesting discussion on erowid's validity took place recently at wikiproject pharmacology).

I'll provide more comments as I complete my review. This should be enough to get editors started, though. Though, based on my initial assessment, I am not expecting major work to be done - mostly minor little things, some of which I may end up just fixing myself,... Cheers! Dr. Cash 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I've made most of the changes you recommend, with the exception that I think erowid.org is a highly desirable external link for the article. Most of the content here comes from a remote, academic perspective, and this link helps to round it out and provide a modern point of view. For example, the site describes the characteristics of illegal heroin from various nations, which is certainly more substantial than the collection of trip reports that the discussion above had suggested. Given that apparently there is a large difference in HIV transmission rates between different types of heroin, this could actually be an important resource. Mike Serfas 03:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I still strongly disagree on erowid.org. It is a site dedicated to experiential, subjective information, and mostly promoting illegal use of substances. While there is some actual valid scientific information on there, a lot of this information is better obtained from legitimate sites. Plus, I don't think it's in wikipedia's best interests to promote the illegal use of drugs, which is something that the owners of the erowid.org site seem to favor. Dr. Cash 06:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

erowid.org provides information, it's not a promotional site. "A lot of this information is better obtained from legitimate sites" -- erowid.org is a legitimate site. --Daniel11 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this site has such a bad reputation with you - but the external link listed is certainly not a blog nor a social networking site nor does it appear to provide false information. I can find no WP:EL policy that even discourages it. Appalling as it is to think about, prior to the introduction of Wikipedia that is probably the place to which someone interested in this topic would have been directed. In just a quick examination of the site last night, I actually found a significant correction to make to this article (which I verified at a second source). The site contains a few subjective reports, yes, but it also contains discussion of everything from Cytochrome P450 isoforms to DEA prescription policies. Regarding its POV, the site contains significant warnings about using drugs and specific unsafe practices, and scarcely seems like a cheerleader for opium, but even if it were I think basic NPOV prohibits me from removing links on this basis. Besides, even if I did remove it, it's such an obvious link to add that it would doubtless turn up again anyway. Mike Serfas 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While I still disagree with your assertions regarding the site, it is but one link in external links, and I won't withhold GA status on that alone (I don't want to ignite a flame war on one link). Plus, I noticed you already removed the extra link to opium photos hosted by erowid, as you also removed another non-notable photo site as well.

It still should not be used as an inline reference citation, but for different reasons, as we should favor primary, peer-reviewed sources as references over secondary & tertiary, non-peer-reviewed sources. It's use in reference citation #55 is unnecessary, because the citation immediately following it is better source in this case, so the secondary source is unnecessary here. Dr. Cash 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me that perhaps the real problem was not that Erowid was the worst external link, but the best external link. Tell me whether you think my addition of some prominent "mainstream" sites helps to balance out the section, or just makes it too long. Also, I removed the Erowid reference (among other things, Erowid is described as a library but there is listed as the author). I hope this helps. Mike Serfas 00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the external links are good. I made another minor modification, explicitly stating the specific information that is being linked to from those sites (without that, it kind of looks, on the surface, like the link is going to the main page of the site).

I've basically completed my review, and the article pretty much nails the Good Article criteria, though there is one major issue and a few minor ones that still needs to be corrected prior to GA status:

• The image Poppyfield_Didcot_UK.jpg has no copyright tag. An acceptable free or fair use tag must be added prior to GA status, or the image should be removed from the article.

There are also a couple of minor issues. While the article is very well cited, there are a few gaps. Most notably:

• In the 'Greece and Rome' subsection, there is some unsourced information by some historical notables (e.g. Hesoid, Homer, Hippocrates, Alex the Great) that should be cited.
• In the 'recreational use' section, the paragraph about the chinese diaspora (18th century), is unsourced. This seems pretty major.
• The 'Cultural references' section is pretty much unsourced. Although this is a lesser issue because the source may very well be contained within the linked article on wikipedia; it would nevertheless be nice if a couple of inline citations were used here.

Other than that, this is a very good article, and very interesting. I made a few minor changes, mostly grammatical, as I went along. The most major ones of those were to the infobox (adding clarification of additional countries to the production & consumption listings, to make it more obvious that it's not all produced in afghanistan neither is it all consumed in the US). I also alphabetized the further reading list, and combined the 'online' items with the 'text' items (I don't see a reason to separate these - they're all useful, it's just that the ones online are easier to obtain than the others.

Good work! Dr. Cash 07:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)