Talk:Lettuce

Lettuce opium

The article mentions lactucarium, an opium-like substance found in lettuce. Is this in common (I'm in the US) salad lettuce like Romaine and iceberg or only a few species? — Sam 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is found in "wild lettuce" (Lactuca virosa) not the same as commercially available lettuce. It grows as a weed in North America. Badagnani 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the standard definition of lactucarium requires its production from Lactuca virosa or "wild lettuce", it was recognized that smaller quantities of lactucarium could be produced in a similar way from Lactuca sativa and Lactuca canadensis var. elongata, and that lettuce-opium obtained from Lactuca serriola or Lactuca quercina was of superior quality.

Enix150 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Disputed accuracy, original research, unreliable sources

This article contains inaccuracies, and it is based upon sources that contain factual inaccuracies, a source that is being promoted as reliable, when it is clearly not. This, plus the original research discussed above suggest to me that this article should not have been promoted to featured article. There is no mission of an encyclopedia that includes dumbing down the facts to the level of wrong to spair the reader's brain.

While this misinformation remains in the article, the disputed tag should remain on the article.

Featured articles do not have a free pass on spreading misinformation.

Eau (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Eau, could you separate out the different issues that are concerning you here? I'm uncertain if this is just about the sentence of the article that runs "have focused on identifying and producing commercial varieties with larger amounts of these compounds" or if there you have additional concerns as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So far, the sentence that says the flowers are composed of florets, since floret is a synonym for flower in the Aster family, this sentence reads as nonsense. One can dumb down the science without creating nonsense. The source contains this information which suggests the source is not reliable. In the insecticides source, the source does not say to increase the quantity, in fact, that is often a problematic genetic solution, what the scientists work the hardest on, but Dana jumped to a conclusion about it. Dana also, althouh maybe in the cabbage article, stated research studies from 7 years ago were ongoing and initially ignored my comment and did not change that.

I am concerned about these problems, and I feel the nature of the problems, and the editor's aggressive protection of the content, requires all sources to be checked.

I also believe that readers must be alerted when articles contain protected factual inaccuracies such as this one does, and I would like the disputed tag to go back up to alert the thousands of readers who come to this article while we discuss the issue. Eau (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Lord. Eau, I'm having a hard time believing that you're having this much of a problem over a handful of words. I've done some additional tweaking on the article, and added in a new source - hopefully this satisfy you. So far, you've accused me of original research, aggressiveness, misuse of sources, and generally being a bad editor. Not a word about how I've almost single-handedly re-written (to a much higher standard) two major food articles that you apparently had no interest in before I started working on them. Adding in a new source and making a few wording tweaks yourself would probably have been much easier than tag bombing a featured article and making demands of other editors on the talk page (something which you have asked me not to do to you, but continue to do to me). Dana boomer (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Cut out the name calling. I brought these to your attention. I am not obliged to praise your work, and, when faulty, I will not. You argued with me when I pointed out factual inaccuracies and you fought to keep the inaccuracies in.

There are more problems with the science you want praises for adding to this article, but I resign, and leave it to your angry self to correct the issues before it lands on the main page.

Eau (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am Dianna, and I am the person who nominated the article for a main page appearance. If there's factual inaccuracies in the article it should definitely not be on the main page until corrections are made. I will withdraw the nomination. -- Dianna (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa! I hadn't realized that you had nominated it for a main page appearance... As far as I know, there are no further inaccuracies in the article (I think I have fixed the places that Eau was concerned about, although he is apparently unwilling to acknowledge this). This article has been thoroughly checked by several of WP's top biology editors, so I highly doubt that there are major factual inaccuracies in it, as alleged by Eau. A few minor wording issues do not rise to the level of gross misuse of sources, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So, from what I've drawn from the above, the two concerns are:

• Over how "have focused on identifying and producing commercial varieties with larger amounts of these compounds" has been interpreted;
• And over "Lettuce inflorescences (known colloquially as "flower heads") are composed of multiple florets", and the meaning of the word floret?

If so, although I'm not a specialist in lettuces, I'm not convinced this should prevent a front-page appearance; they seem fairly minor issues to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hchc! Regarding the first point, I have reworked that sentence. Regarding the second point, that is the rewritten version (it previously read "Lettuce flowers are composed of multiple florets" and the discussion was regarding the meaning of the word flower). Eau has yet to comment on either of these changes, or to identify additional issues with the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice article by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with EauOo on the first point, not sure about the second (no botanical expertise here), but I think Dana's fixes are satisfactory (and were easy to make... seems to be much ado about minor changes). Would welcome further input from EauOo as to whether additional fixes are needed. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this out. I am restoring my nomination, and hopefully the article will soon be selected for an appearance on the main page. - Dianna (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to examine the issues here (not by Eau), and there are some remaining ones:

1. 'Greeks and Romans, who gave it the name "lactuca"': Later it makes it abundantly clear that it was the Romans that called it lactuca.
2. Sativa means "cultivated", not "common"
3. 'Mature lettuce flower and fruits' (illustration) should be 'Mature lettuce inflorescence in fruit'
4. 'Lettuce inflorescences (known colloquially as "flower heads")' It's not colloquial--"flower head" is an accepted alternative term. Some people misunderstand it to mean a flower that is a head, rather than a head made up of flowers, but people misunderstand a lot of things. An even better term for the inflorescence is "capitulum".
5. 'each containing a ligulate petal and reproductive system.' This is way oversimplified to the extent of being wrong. The ligule is composed of five petals all fused together (you can count their tips), and the flower also contains the pappus, which makes the parachute of the fruit.
6. 'stigma-containing style' is nonsense; the style and stigma are separate parts (it would be the equivalent of saying "pastern-containing cannon")
7. 'The flowers form compressed, obovate (teardrop-shaped) dry fruits' The fruits come from a specific part of the flower, the ovary.

I'd be happy to suggest alternative wording if anyone is interested, and look at the rest of the article, but I'm rather cynical about Wikipedia now, so if you're resistant, please let me know up front and I'll go elsewhere.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Curtis, and thanks for your comments! The technical botany part of the article is obviously the weakest - if you have suggested rewordings (or perhaps new sources?) it would be fantastic - please feel free to simply edit the article yourself, as well (not that I need to give you permission, I'm just trying to make it doubly obvious that I know I don't "own" the article). My background is much stronger in the cultivation/production/culinary uses area. I'll begin working on your comments above (especially the first two, which are quite easy to rectify) in the morning. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some changes; you might want to tweak the wording to make it fit better. Also, what I wrote is correct, but it may not be 100% included in the reference. If you see any issues, I can look for an additional reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Curtis, and I hope the changes I made earlier addressed the rest of your comments above. The new wording is unfortunately not supported by the sources I have in there (I think they are both available to the public?), so if you have a better source to supplement/supplant what is currently there, I would be grateful. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reference for the floral stuff; I'd add it, but you'd just have to correct my <ref> syntax. I've modified the text so that the connection to the reference, which is about the entire tribe Cichorieae, is clear.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've added the new ref in. My apologies for taking a few days to do so - I saw your post about the source and then completely forgot about taking action on it :( Thanks again for your help, and if you have any further comments, I'd love to hear them, Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some information in this article is inaccurate and misleading, in particular "In the first years of the 21st century, bagged salad products began to hold a growing portion of the lettuce market, especially in the US. Processed from what was previously waste lettuce not considered acceptable for the fresh market, these products are packaged in a manner that makes them last longer than standard head lettuce after harvest.[44]". I have purchased bagged loose leaf salads (mesclun) in the US in the nineties and it was not considered a waste product, but a high value item. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to research this further, but want to make people aware that the reference under 44 does not reflect the entire truth.

Hskoppek (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Weaver Source

Quite a bit of the info in this article is cited from "Weaver," who I presume is the author of a book, but I can't find a title of the book or anything else about this source. Who is Weaver? And how is it OK to cite him/her so heavily in this article without even proving that he/she (or the source authored by him/her) even exists? Am I missing something? I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, but I use Wikipedia every day, and if I'm having trouble locating this source, I'm sure many others are, too. 24.252.90.73 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Worthy of Note?

Lettuce is now the first foodstuff to be grown and consumed in space. [1] --ERAGON (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lactuca pronounciation

Lactuca sativa - is it "Laktuka" or "Laktusa" or "Lastusa"?

in IPA that would be "ləktuka" or "ləktusa" or "ləstusa" — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaBinLogin (talk • contribs) 01:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Laktuka" methinks. Batternut (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lettuce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511202430/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/65.lettuce.html to http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/database/plants/65.lettuce.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322151027/http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/month/lettuce.html to http://www.fruitsandveggiesmatter.gov/month/lettuce.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lettuce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120916125457/http://www.ars-grin.gov/misc/mmpnd/Lactuca.html to http://www.ars-grin.gov/misc/mmpnd/Lactuca.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lettuce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615003744/http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca1011p3-64576.pdf to http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/repositoryfiles/ca1011p3-64576.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2018

Could you change the name Holland into the Netherlands, since Holland is not an official country nor is it a sovereign entity. Thank you so much. (njsb0971@live.co.uk) 145.130.27.145 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How would this be an improvement? The article doesn't appear to say that Holland is a country only that it is part of Europe. This change would like alter the meaning of the sentence and should be discussed. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The breeding of these new varieties was in the then-Republic of the Seven United Provinces, of which the Province of Holland was the most important and generally used in English at the time to refer to the entire Republic. It is not equivalent to the modern nation of the Netherlands. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: please update 2015 values with 2017 values

In the Introduction, please replace this sentence:

World production of lettuce and chicory for calendar year 2015 was 26.1 million tonnes, 56% of which came from China.[4]

with this update:

World production of lettuce for calendar year 2017 was 24.9 million tonnes, 53% of which came from China.[2]

This update would also remove the chicory problem: chicory (Cichorium intybus/endivia) is not a variety of lettuce (Lactuca sativa).31.54.164.24 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: That source is about the 2013 values, not 2017. NiciVampireHeart 23:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: please correct lettuce/chicory confusion and update 2017>2019

In the Introduction, please replace this sentence:

World production of lettuce and chicory for calendar year 2017 was 27 million tonnes, 56% of which came from China.[4]

with this version:

World production of lettuce as of Sep 2019 was 26.78 million tons annually, with China being the top producer and the USA the main exporter.[3]

This would remove the chicory confusion, because chicory (Cichorium intybus/endivia) is not a variety of lettuce (Lactuca sativa).86.178.174.254 (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It looks like the top exporter is the United States; where does it say it is Spain? Peter James (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think there must have been an update to the website in the last few days whereby Spain has been replaced by the USA. I have amended the edit request above accordingly.86.159.190.31 (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Reviewing the sources, I don't feel comfortable replacing the FAO source with a source of questionable reliability, even if the figures are roughly the same. Sceptre (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Currently is 8 years ago (GMO lettuce)

There's a reference to GMO lettuce not "currently" being used. I put a "When" template in there, and it was removed as "unnecessary". I don't feel like having an edit war, so let me ask for consensus: is "currently" really 8 years in the past, in a fast-moving industry like transgenic crops? IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Cultural and religious sensitivities.

Because of the lettuce shortage, KFC is using cabbage in place of lettuce, so when I saw the Wikipedia article locked due to vandalism, I thought I should mention though officially here in Australia where we have some Yazidi, the Sydney Morning Herald does concur that Yazidi don't eat lettuce, for cultural reasons, but then say "The sect lacks any written text, which helps account for the tall tales explaining its doctrines." Which AFAIK they do have their own Bibles, but the Wikipedia article on Yazidism (which isn't locked due to vandalism like the lettuce article is) mentions 'cabbage' "Many Yazidis consider pork to be prohibited. However, many Yazidis living in Germany began to view this taboo as a foreign belief from Judaism or Islam and not part of Yazidism, and therefore abandoned this rule.[72] Furthermore, in a BBC interview in April 2010, Baba Sheikh, the spiritual leader of all Yazidis, stated that ordinary Yazidis may eat what they want, but the religious clergy refrain from certain vegetables (including cabbage) because "they cause gases".[73]"

With all that's going on, I just wanted to make sure that Wikipedia is consistent in presenting cultures across its articles. I hope you all have a nice day. 49.184.175.53 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"Sangchu" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sangchu and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Sangchu until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

evolution of lettuce

Are there sources or papers from paleo-botanists on this plant family? The ancients had to have the primitive species to cultivate from. Does the plant pre-date the Cenozoic? 2603:6080:21F0:6140:281A:EB96:7F92:E3E7 (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)