This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Drug Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Drug Policy 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.
I'm thinking that perhaps this should be changed into a disambiguation page instead of one article trying to cover two separate wars. See for example, the Anglo-Sikh wars and Anglo-Maratha Wars. Spellcast (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Support - I think this might also help to decrease the Chinese Nationalist bias by spreading it thinner. --FunkyDuffy (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - At the moment there is duplication inherent in having three articles. Arguably, the two Opium Wars are not connected but rather two separate wars started by the British on equally flimsy pretexts. ► Philg88 ◄talk 20:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Support Our readers are not helped by having three separate and uncoordinated articles which repeat a good deal of material. I can see an argument for one article, though two articles seem better to me, but three articles don't make sense. ch (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've made the disamb page. The main problem I saw was having uncoordinated and fragmented info spread across different articles. For example, someone might add something here about the first war but not in the corresponding article. There's always the history if anyone thinks any useful info can be added elsewhere. Spellcast (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I severely disagree with the classification of this as a "concept" disambig. The opium wars were two historical events, and are not conceptual in nature. FunkyDuffy (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I must disagree with you strongly. The events we now commonly refer to as The First Opium War and The Second Opium War were intricately linked to each other (conceptually), even much, much more tightly than were WWI and WWII. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
someone should put an article about NATO aggression on Afghanistan and the growth of opium production as it's consequence. also the making of a opium distribution base in kosovo, for the european customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference to the United States in the second paragraph
It is deceptive, to say the least, to include the United States in this sorry British affair in only the second paragragh of this article. Hence it has been removed. Rodney215 (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm unclear if you mean it is deceptive, because you deny the US involvement, or if you mean it is deceptive because the article should be expanded to include more information about how extensive the US involvement really was. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
American involvement was by individual smugglers. If and when they were intercepted by the British, who considered themselves owners of the opium trade, their opium was treated as contraband,confiscated and forcibly sold to the Chinese. The Opium trade wasn't just sanction by the British Government. It was owned by the British Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Pawyilee/sandbox/opium trade contains an extract from the journal of Edmund Roberts (diplomat) on the growth of opium trade, 1817-1832, and I'm asking for help incorporating an appropriate bit into this article. I'd also appreciate advice on how to post any or all of his journal to Wikisource. I've read the directions there, and they baffle me. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the page to the version of 28 October 2012 because there had been a quick succession of individual changes by new editors, most of whom had made edits to no other pages, which resulted in wrong formatting, incoherent and ungrammatical sentences, etc. etc. etc. ch (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
How about some help incorporating the Roberts' report linked above? --Pawyilee (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I apologize if I reverted out good edits. I'd be glad to help put them them back but after searching through, I can't find the Roberts material. Could you tell me what or when it was? ch (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, I misunderstood, sorry, I thought that the material had been added and that I reverted it out. I looked at the Edmund Roberts article and was very impressed with the good work you did there. I learned a lot. I don't have time right now to do anything, but if it's ok, I'll come back tonight or tomorrow and sort things through. Maybe you and I together can figure out how to put the Roberts stuff on the Wikisource thing. Cheers. ch (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No one has added reference to Roberts' report as yet. Is anyone elese interested?
In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1800 it amounted to over 4,500 chests annually. In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tons), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000.
Given that the article is about the Opium War(s), it seems imperative not to insert the statistics for 1838 at 40,000 chests (right before war), especially since it was available alongside the earlier year stats in source  (Cambridge Illus. Hist. China). I think 40K is the modern consensus figure (though I won't go into arguing right here).
In the second sentence above, the 1858/70K chest stats was given unsourced. But Googled sources giving this stat also gave 1838/20K generally, making them incongruous with the 1838/40K consensus datasets. Reluctant to leave it as is, I have "quarantined" the second sentence with the 70K stats, though I have leaft the work to others to making the presentation of these sets of data compatible. --Kiyoweap (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
The unsourced 1858 stats that I "footnoted out" is data during the Arrow War (2nd war), so you can argue such data does properly belong to this article on the grounds that it covers both "Opium Wars". However, I am not still not inclined to favor mixing the one set of data with the other. Rather, I am more inclined to throw in another vote for "support" under the #Disambiguation page, as I too see numerous problems (redundancy, inconsistency) with retaining this article which is mostly a duplication of First Opium War. --Kiyoweap (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The result of this discussion is Merge, given that once the first proposal has been implemented completely. The consensus is clear on the support for this merge proposal. While the current article page contains content information that are not covered in the respective articles as pointed out by Lineagegeek, LlywelynII has volunteered to take over this task.
The Opium Wars were certainly not independent historical events, and the term Opium Wars itself cannot not be treated as a type of war. From my understanding, the Second Opium War is not specifically associated with opium trade, rather it was caused by the series of unequal treaty in the aftermath of the First Opium War which resulted in variety of conflicts that initiated further aggression from the Western powers. Alex ShihTalk 14:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There was already a very strong consensus for a content merge from this Opium Wars article to the First and Second Opium War articles but given that it hasn't happened yet and another three years of editing have gone into the page, I feel we should restart the discussion and see how people feel in 2014. I concur with other editors that a very strong content fork is occurring. My proposal:
and (here) LlywelynIIall in favor of the first proposal (raised by Spellcast in 2011, reraised by Kiyoweap in 2013, and now again by me here) and no one in opposition. The second proposal is new here, but it seems needless and unhelpful to maintain two separate dabs. — LlywelynII 13:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
[Comment.] are the opium wars treated as a linked subject by historians? Perhaps an overarching article on the two wars with the bulk of the content of the actual wars in those two articles. There is a Boer Wars article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Very enthusiastic support for this proposal. Many thanks are once again due to Llywelyn for taking it on! This can be part of a general effort to coordinate Qing dynasty articles. These changes should be reflected in revisions to the overview article, Qing Dynasty. There is discussion at Talk:Qing Dynasty#Sources for Military? Move?, of creating sub-articles. Military of the Qing dynasty has already shown the way. Llywelyn's example should inspire us.
We could also consider new articles or new sections in other articles. Perhaps some of the material in the present Opium Wars article could be redistributed: the section "Opium in China" to a new main article Opium in China.
The section "Qing Attitudes toward trade" and parts of "British trade and the Canton system" to Foreign relations of imperial China; and "growth of the opium trade" to the First Opium War.
These efforts should help raise these and other Qing articles to Good Article status.
Comments on Second Opium War. The sources are now especially weak or antiquated (Michel Vie; Thomson; Encyclopedia Larousse 1898; Le Figaro) or simply a passing reference in an otherwise irrelevant book (Religion Under Socialism; Taiwan in Modern Times). There are good sources listed under Further Reading. Hsu and Spence's texts are Reliable Sources even though tertiary because Spence and Hsu are Qing specialists. ch (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your additional thoughts: A) What precisely does "coördinating articles" involve? It should probably be dealt with on the respective wars' talk pages or at some other appropriate forum such as the China WikiProject. B)Opium in China and History of opium should certainly exist, either as a redirects to sections of Illegal drug trade in China or Opium or, if there's enough material, separate pages. [Edit: Created redirects. Certainly overlong section at Opium#History that could be spun out, but not my bailiwick.] C) Following renewed consensus for a merge, I'll simply be porting sections to the main articles mentioned above. If you feel other articles' current treatment of these topics are deficient, you should remedy that now and directly. Similarly, if those topics are better addressed at those other pages and the current treatment here is excessive and shouldn't be ported over to the main articles mentioned above, go ahead and edit the existing article on your own prior to the full merge. D) Good luck with that. E) Wrong forum. Should mention that at Talk:Second Opium War although in my experience things get appended to "Further Reading" when it's a pain to find full view copies online. You'll have a hard time getting others to incorporate such sources unless you're glossing them or using the History WikiProject's programs to hook people up with academic access. Good luck, though. — LlywelynII 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
My quick additional thoughts above, as Llewlyn correctly points out, were mostly in the wrong forum, but do have some bearing here. By "coordinating articles" I meant precisely what Philg88 and Llywelyn are doing or propose to do, that is, adding redirects and links, developing "support" articles, and making sure that what one article says is not contradicted or massively duplicated in another. Llywelyn proposes to start things off by making sure that this article "Opium Wars" is not a Content Fork in the sense of duplicating topics without well... coordinating them.
If I understand correctly, Lineagegeek also has a legitimate concern, namely that moving material might deprive one or another article of needed background material. However, Related Articles remarks that "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." I take this to mean that each article stands on its own as self-contained for a reader, but that some articles have full coverage and some have Summaries. See also WP:SYNC We'll see, but Llywelyn seems aware of the issue and further edits can always be made once the material is moved.
As to the question of the weak sources, I will indeed take the suggestion to raise it at Talk:Second Opium War. Here I'll simply add that Spence, Hsu, and Lovell are affordable paperbacks which do not need an academic affiliation to use. I prefer online sources, of course, but only when and if they are otherwise good ones. Cheers, ch (talk) 05:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong Support For those interested in where we got to in the last discussion please see here. Thanks to LlywelynII for bringing this to the top of the pile again. ► Philg88 ◄talk 07:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
If it wasn't obvious from the above, both prior discussions are linked within the "(here)" parentheticals. — LlywelynII 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment This goes beyond a simple merger request. Because this article contains background on the opium trade in China that led up to, but is not included in, either the First or Second Opium War articles, a contingent Support based on the proposals by LLewellanll being simultaneously implemented. Otherwise Oppose. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the second proposal (to redirect this namespace to Opium War (disambiguation)) has any bearing on the early opium trade. Could you clarify that? [Fwiw, I would simply move information on the run-up to the first war on the First Opium War page.] — LlywelynII 15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If your comment means you are withdrawing your suggestion to move some material to other existing articles that have bearing on the opium trade in China that are not tied to the proximate causes of the first war, because this article contains material not appropriate to the First Opium War (as suggested below), I 'Oppose. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Huh? I'm not withdrawing any of my proposals. The material from this page will first and foremost be forked between the two pages it's a CFORK of. Any material that is appropriate here is also appropriate there. Any material here that needs to be repeated or linked on additional pages needs to have that material added regardless of the merge here. — LlywelynII 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment That leads to a whole new discussion on how much background the merged article should contain. My view is that the "support" articles like the Canton System (which I'm currently working on) and possibly a new Opium in China article as suggested by CWH above, should cover most of the history up to the point where the gloves came off - i.e. when Lin Zexu arrived in Canton. Thoughts? ► Philg88 ◄talk 22:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I would simply merge the material here to the First Opium War article. If there is enough material to justify spinning off most of a section's material into a new article, peachy; otherwise not. It really has no bearing on this discussion. — LlywelynII 15:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Support Although one factor in the British going to war a second time was because of unresolved issues from the first war, these are actually quite separate conflicts. Later down the line, I wouldn't oppose turning this into a more clear and concise article that explains how these wars are connected (like the Boer Wars as User:GraemeLeggett pointed out above). Spellcast (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, although the name didn't start until the 1910s, "Second Opium War" is the COMMONENGLISH name of that conflict these days and the page is being merged as an unnecessary CFORK and so (in most of our eyes) should not ever be recreated in any form. But, the support here seems broad and refreshed enough, I'll go ahead and do this and then you guys can complain or make adjustments to what I've done. ; ) — LlywelynII 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No one's been along to close this yet, but that makes seven days. The only objection seems to be an off-topic hesitation by Lineagegeek. (For what it's worth, I'll implement all of my proposals as I've stated, so s/he's technically a "support".) Today (and maybe for some of this week), I'll draw up new versions of the 1st and 2nd War pages incorporating the passages being removed here. I'm not sure how the editing credits are supposed to work but, once we know exactly what phrases and sources we're keeping, could one of y'all send someone informed on this process (/with special software) my way so we can credit everything to the appropriate people? — LlywelynII 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
As you said, it's not actually a split, but do the policies at WP:PROSPLIT help with giving credit? ch (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Support merge and disambiguate There is supporting evidence for this and I see no persuasive arguments against doing this. Blue Rasberry(talk) 13:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I disagree that a content fork is developing. Each article covers different aspects, so far as I noticed on my drive-by. I saw in the 2011 merge discussion a comment by someone that the first and second war had separate causes and were very much separate conflicts. I've not studied Chinese history in detail so I don't know if that's true. If anything, perhaps this article should look more like World war, discussing how the label was applied. Disambiguation is a foolhardy step, here. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not clear what you oppose. Could you clarify? The proposal is not to merge into one article, but to merge the appropriate parts of the article Opium Wars into the two articles OW1 and OW2. Thanks! ch (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Support the split to two articles with this one remaining as a disambiguation page. Testem (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support in part and oppose in part. I agree that some material can be merged and moved into the other articles, but people looking for "Opium Wars" in the plural are probably looking for an overview of the two wars and the connections between them. For example, look at Wars of Scottish Independence describing such a succession of related wars. Also, look at Civil war and World war for articles about a type of war, which this could also be. I think, therefore, that this title should continue to be an article, even if it is only a summary description of the forces shaping and continuing these conflicts. Either that, or it should be merged and redirected to a broader article on the overall relationship between China and the British Empire during this period. - WPGA2345 -☛ 03:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/1841-a-window-on-victorian-britain-475516.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)