All corrections
Wikipedia July 6, 2026 at 09:28 PM

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_den

3 corrections found

1
Claim
In 1891, the Census recorded 582 Chinese-born residents in Britain, though this dropped to 387 in 1896.
Correction

The year 1896 is incorrect here. Britain’s census was taken every ten years, and the figure of 387 Chinese-born residents is associated with the 1901 census, not 1896.

Full reasoning

This sentence conflates two different dates. The UK National Archives states that censuses in England and Wales were taken every ten years and lists the relevant dates as 1891 – 5 April and 1901 – 31 March; there was no nationwide census in Britain in 1896. A historical overview from the Society for Anglo-Chinese Understanding then gives the specific figures used here: 582 Chinese-born residents in 1891 and 387 Chinese-born residents in 1901. So the article’s “387 in 1896” is a date error; the figure belongs to 1901.

2 sources
2
Claim
In 1857, the Second Opium War resulted in the Treaties of Tianjin which included a clause allowing Britain and France to recruit Chinese to the British Colonies, North America, South America, and Australia as cheap labour.
Correction

This sentence misdates and misattributes the labor-emigration clause. The Treaties of Tianjin were signed in 1858, and the quoted emigration provision appears in the 1860 Convention of Peking, not in a 1857 Treaty of Tianjin.

Full reasoning

There are two concrete errors here.

  1. The Treaties of Tianjin were not a 1857 treaty outcome. The U.S. Office of the Historian states that the treaties at Tianjin were signed in 1858 during the Second Opium War.

  2. The labor-emigration clause cited here is not from the Treaties of Tianjin. In the text of the 1860 Convention of Friendship between Great Britain and China (one of the Convention of Peking treaties), Article V says that Chinese people choosing to take service in British colonies or other places overseas were free to enter such engagements and sail from China’s open ports. That is the clause this sentence is describing.

So the article wrongly places that emigration provision in the 1857/1858 Treaties of Tianjin, when the clause is found in the 1860 Convention of Peking.

2 sources
3
Claim
The treaty also forced China to open their ports to foreign trade, which included opium.
Correction

The Treaty of Nanking opened ports to British trade, but it did not legalize opium trade there. Opium legalization is associated with the later Treaties of Tianjin in 1858.

Full reasoning

This sentence mixes two different treaty settlements.

The 1842 Treaty of Nanking did open five ports to British merchants. Its text specifies residence and trade at Canton, Amoy, Foochowfoo, Ningpo, and Shanghai, and sets up a tariff for import and export customs. But the treaty text does not say that opium was thereby legalized as part of that opening.

A later summary from the USC U.S.-China Institute’s exchange database—citing the U.S. Department of State’s historical materials—states that the 1858 Treaties of Tianjin were the agreements that legalized the opium trade. So attributing opium-inclusive port opening to the Treaty of Nanking is incorrect; that change belongs to the later Tianjin settlement.

2 sources
  • Treaty of Nanking (text)

    Article 2... British Subjects... shall be allowed to reside... at the cities and towns of Canton, Amoy, Foochowfoo, Ningpo, and Shanghai... Article 10... establish... a fair and regular Tariff of Export and Import Customs and other Dues...

  • Treaties of Tianjin (Tientsin) Signed | US-China Exchanges

    These new treaties opened more treaty ports to foreign trade and settlement, granted additional trading privileges to foreign merchants, legalized the opium trade...

Model: OPENAI_GPT_5 Prompt: v1.16.0