Active discussions
Lettuce is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 26, 2012.
Article milestones
April 20, 2012Good article nomineeListed
May 29, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
July 29, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article was included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Reconciling the lettuce map and 'facts and figures'Edit

From the trivia section at the bottom: "In the United States, 95% of all head lettuce is grown in California and Arizona." Yet, the map shows lettuce being grown on the east coast of the US. My first thought was that the map shows which countries grow the lettuce, but then why would there be multiple dots within a single country (like the US)? Any ideas on how we could make this more clear? --Revaaron 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Distinguishing members of the asterales from species that are not really lettuceEdit

I wonder whether this article should mention that "Lamb's lettuce" is not, strictly speaking, a true lettuce, as it belongs to a totally different plant family to familiar varieties such as iceberg? Also, is Chinese leaf really a form of lettuce? I would be interested to hear whether any one can clarify for me whether this, as with other lettuces, is a member of the asterale family (compositae), or belongs (as I seem to recall hearing) to the family of crucifers.ACEO 20:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This article should include germination of the lettuce plant from a young age and more information on what lettuces are and how they grow not irellirant information on species and subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please keep in mind that not everyone considers taxonomic information irrelevant. As for adding information that isn't in the article now, please be bold if you know where to find good information on lettuce development. --Allen 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

also, oakleaf (or oak-leaf) lettuce seems to be missing from wikipedia entirely.... 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm moving this image here, because the page seems crowded with images, and there is already an image of Iceberg in the taxobox.

Iceberg lettuce

Pekinensis 21:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World recordEdit

Do we need a reference for the world record inserted by I haven't been able to confirm the information. Pekinensis 21:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Do you think the second paragraph of "History" was vandalized? Either way, without the citation it should probably be removed. 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell would someone vandalize an article on lettuce? -- 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he got attacked by a lettuce as a child LOL - after being around here a while - I still fail to understand why people vandalize. The ones I expect are immature kids vandalizing "dirty word" articles, or adding "dirty words" to articles, or messing up the school page, or making nasty remarks about their teachers, or defaming their friends. But there are others where people spend a lot of time writing intricate articles full of nonsense. They usually get deleted within a couple of minutes - so why bother. --ArmadilloFromHell 05:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I will admit, the ClueBot OS is a fine piece of programming for sorting out vandalism, i've seen a fair share of it myself coming from this IP address over a few months and stepped in when I realised there was a block warning in place for any more, but kids will be kids, however strict the school is there will still be the occassional rebellious person. The best we can do is undo the damage that they do and if it's possible try and find out which student did it. On the matter of Lettuce I don't really know much so if this gets removed by ClueBot OS as not contributing then it makes sense to me, I just wanted to give my opinion on this matter. (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition ComparisonEdit

Does anyone have any information about comparing the nutritional value for different types of lettuces (in particular, is Iceberg lettuce anywhere near as nutritional)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

There are small differences, but in general, the nutritional value of lettuces is so low that it doesn't make much of a difference. It's 96% water! Han-Kwang 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not true at all. Head lettuce is worthless nutritionally, while Romaine lettuce is full of vitamins. Three cups of Romaine lettuce contains 87% RDA of Vitamin A an 10% RDA of iron. (Cashew 23:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

I confess that I only checked 2 or 3 types of lettuce before I made that remark, but after comparing butterhead and Romaine side-by-side I'm not really convinced. The vit A content in butterhead lettuce isn't so bad either, although indeed lower than in romaine. Han-Kwang 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed ?Edit

What sort of citation would you need for this? A citation of someone describing bolted lettuce or a citation of someone associating it with verility?

"As any vegetable gardener will know the lettuce can bolt or surge vertically upwards. This combined with a milky substance they can exude when cut could have been seen as a symbol of the male phallus ejaculating [citation needed]."

The citation is asking for the second one, but that doesn't mean that the first one isn't needed. Everything should be cited, there is just a focus on less obviously "right" statements to start with. Notinasnaid 08:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Lettuce opiumEdit

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)


I read in World Book that lettuce comes from Iran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Red leafEdit

Red leaf lettuce should be describe in the list of varieties. Badagnani 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

History section - copyvioEdit

I have removed the History section as copyvio - it is a lift from here. Bridgeplayer 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


I inserted a great new picture into the article, which necessitated a wholesale change in the layout. Feel free to shuffle around further if it still doesn't look good.--Slashme 11:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Article needs more informationEdit

Specifically, it should mention what climate lettuce grows in. (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Lactuce Sativa is the official name of lettuce, Cannabis Sativa of weed. is there something the same about these two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i beilieve that alettuce helps dijest your food as a suplimentary laxidive —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

sativa is the latin word for cultivated or useful and is used for many unrelated species. They are not at all the same.--Charles (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Article on Wikibooks Horticulture?Edit

As Wikipedia is not a how-to manual the growing instructions on the page should really go to Wikibooks Horticulture.--Charles (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Green leaf" lettuceEdit

I know this is a place to discuss the article, not the subject, so I guess I'm skirting on the edge of both here, but: I came here to find out what the "green leaf lettuce" I see in American supermarkets is, and discovered that this article mentions nothing about it. Google has provided me with only very vague results (nutritional information, but not whether it is different from or the same as Romaine, and so on), so I'm wondering if anyone more educated than me could clarify this, and perhaps take the opportunity to improve the article? Matt S. (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Romans and EgyptiansEdit

Added a Dubious tag to the claim "Both the Romans and Egyptians took advantage of this property by eating lettuce at the end of a meal to induce sleep", until someone comes up with a stronger reference than an organic food and lifestyle website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


The article says that lettuce is "hardy to zone 6". Since lettuce can be grown in much colder zones, I assume that this refers to winter hardiness. Since the plant is almost invariably grown as an annual (does it even have perennial behavior?) is this relevant, and is it important enough to be so high in the article? I'm deciding not and moving this fact lower in the article, but wanted to ask the question. RamblingChicken (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion on WP is verifiability by reliable secondary sources rather than truth. We have to go with what the sources say even if we personally disagree. In the absense of reliable sources it should just be left out. I hope this helps.--Charles (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A belated response: It's not that I disagree, the question is about relevance and/or meaning. To me, "hardy" usually means that the plant can survive a winter and be alive the next spring. Since lettuce finishes its life in two or three months, that definition doesn't seem relevant, so I don't know what "hardiness" means in this context. RamblingChicken (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RC has a point. The term is vague because it is used in different contexts. According to my childhood instruction, it means that the plant can survive frost; "half hardy" would mean that it can survive frost as a mature plant, but not as a seedling. This should be clarified in text, or it would amount to hand-waving. JonRichfield (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Iceberg lettuceEdit

Why does the section on cultivars not mention iceberg lettuce? While I am here, I could also point out that it does not mention curly leaf or little gem. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. In 1493 Columbus sailed the deep blue seaEdit

I have removed the claim that "Christopher Columbus introduced lettuce to the New World.[1] It seemed suspicious and the source is lightweight to say the least. I found hardly better sources claiming (without support) that he did so on his second voyage. I found nothing to support the idea that if he did, the crop was established from that point on. I have no access to primary sources or even to authoritative secondary sources, but in searching online, I found nothing pre-twentieth century, and nothing substantial post 19th. To my mind this spells Urban Legend and I reckon we need something better than that. JonRichfield (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Fruits & Veggies Matter: Fruit & Vegetable of the Month: Lettuce | CDC". 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2011.

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lettuce/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dana, I'll review this article. Not only did I eat some in a salad last night, but I plan to grow some in the garden this year ... so I'm a 2X subject matter expert :) Are you planning to take this to FAC sometime? If not, I'll just review with GA criteria in mind. Will have comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

LOL, if that's what it takes to be an expert, I've been one for years :) I would like to take this one to FAC at some point, so would love to see additional comments in that direction. I don't generally write articles on plants, so I wasn't really sure what to include/leave out. Dana boomer (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, would anybody mind if I butt in to help review a bit? I am planning to work on the almond article in the near future, so I think it would be a good experience for me to participate in the review process of another crop. I'll concede to Sasata's experience on any controversy, of course. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few changes already. I have some comments which I may post later if they are welcome. I enjoyed reading your work, and I'm excited to see a major crop article improved like this! Buttonwillowite (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tweaks to the article, and please feel free to post any comments that you have. Additional eyes are always helpful on major articles such as this one, especially since I would like to take it to FAC in the future. If you wish, I would be happy to return the favor on the almond article - not my area of expertise (we can't grow them where I live, so I mainly just eat them!), but I'm still happy to help. Dana boomer (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll post em! I'd really appreciate the help with the almond article when the time comes (it could be a while, I have pretty limited experience).

Comments by Buttonwillowite (talk) (Take em or leave em)

  • History section
  • "image-based evidence"
I think it would be better to specify what type of images these are. Hieroglyphics, paintings, etc.
Is the next sentence ("resulting in many images being created in tombs and wall paintings.") not specific enough? Because that's all the source says. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've just removed "image-based" altogether, because the next sentence does a better job of explaining things, in my opinion. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Lettuce was first brought to the americas from europe..."
This sentence feels like it comes up rather abruptly. I've been trying to think of how to improve this.
It is a bit abrupt, but I was trying to keep things somewhat chronological, while still grouping pertinent facts (the information about herbals, for example) together. If you have any ideas on how to better integrate this, or if you think it should be moved elsewhere, I'm all ears - I just haven't been able to come up with a solution on my own :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
In any event, it's not in strict chronological order. 15th century should go before 1500s. :P Buttonwillowite (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

:*"Is a significant source"

To keep the tense consistent, I'd suggest changing this to "has been a significant source"
Done. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:*"by the practice"

Suggest "by the historical practice"?
It's not exactly historical...they still do it. None of them will admit to it, of course, but if you look in a dozen different catalogs you can find the same variety under several names. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough.. very interesting information to know! Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:*"The religious ties..."

This sentence seems like it should be put into another paragraph, and possibly expanded a bit.
I feel that expanding it would put too much weight (per WP:UNDUE) on the beliefs of one very minor tribe. Based on the below comment, I have moved this to the "medicinal lore" section. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see what you mean. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Cultivation section
  • I think providing conversions for the Fahrenheit temperatures would be good.
  • I knew I forgot something! I meant to do this, and then completely forgot - thank you for reminding me. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • More generally, I'm concerned (from an FAC perspective) that this section focuses a bit too much on a gardening perspective. Let me know if you would like help finding sources on agricultural scale cultivation! For a good article, I think the section is just fine as it is.
  • A very valid point, and one that I had not considered. I will need to take a look and see what I can find, source-wise; it may take me a couple of days. I'll check back in on this point. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If your library can get you a copy of this book [1], I think it would be a good source, although it would most likely have a strong west-coast-of-the-US bias. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added a bit on agricultural-scale cultivation to the production section. I plan to continue looking for some extra stuff, because I want to expand on the differences/similarities between garden and agricultural production - the actual how of the growing. Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Cultivars section
  • (talking about iceberg lettuce) "low in flavor and nutritional content, being mostly water."
Lettuces are mostly water in general. I'd suggest removing the last three words.
Would changing it to something like "being composed of even more water than other varieties" or something similar work? I would like to include the reason for the lower flavor and nutritional content... Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
If that is supported by the source (or whatever other source you may have), then that's fine! My main concern was that the statement may give a false impression to the reader that other lettuces are largely composed of something other than water. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nutrition and health

:*"...the plants were most likely contaminated through contact with animal feces"

Check the source on this one. It seems to state generically that contamination can occur through a variety of means, but does not refer to any past contamination events specifically. I'd suggest rewriting this sentence to better reflect the source.
I would have to disagree on this. The source doesn't refer to any specific past contamination events involving lettuce, at all, it just says that E. coli has been found in lettuce. It also says "...contaminate produce through raw or improperly composted manure, irrigation water containing untreated sewage or manure, and contaminated wash water. Contact with mammals, reptiles, fowl, Insects and unpasteurized animal products are other sources of contamination." and "...While the bacteria do not appear to make these animals sick, the animals carry and shed the bacteria in their feces. Drinking and recreational water have been carriers in several outbreaks, supposedly from fecal contamination by infected animals or people." These excerpts, and really, the whole article, state that E. coli is generally carried in animal feces, and transferred to food through the contact of this feces (or traces of it) and the plant. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I'll cross this one out. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Medicinal lore

:*"having some religious symbolism"

I'd suggest "serving as a religious symbol". It might also make sense to move the Yazidi sentence to this part of the article, but I'm not sure.
Done, on the first part. Moved on the second part.
  • "Lettuce was originally thought to promote love and childbearing in women"
Do your sources indicate which group of people originally thought this, or when? Could be good information to include.
No, it just says "This belief [that it caused impotence and sterility] was an inversion of the original one, for lettuce was thought to have the power of arousing love and of promoting childbirth if eaten by the wife." I'll do some more searching and see if I can come up with a source that goes into more detail; will check back. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The ancient Egyptians were who thought this. I've added it in. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the narcotic effect, do you have any information on what chemical causes this?
  • I'm sure it's out there - I'll find a source and add this in. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Found something on this. Is it enough or should I dig more? Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall it looks really good, and I learned a thing or two about lettuce! I have a PDF file of the lettuce article from The Encyclopedia of Food and Culture which may be helpful to you if you intend to expand the article for an FA nomination. If you would like it, I can email it to you or upload it to a neutral source for you to download. Let me know! Buttonwillowite (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(You can download it here: [2])
Thanks for the comments! I've made some changes and replied to everything above. There are a few spots that I need to do some source checking - I'll hopefully have an answer on these tomorrow, but it might be Monday. I've downloaded the above article - it looks quite interesting and like it will have some good information. I'll update here when I've had a chance to integrate that article and look for some new sources on the questions you asked above. Thanks again - it's so helpful to have lots of eyes on a topic that's this widespread and diverse. Dana boomer (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem! Thanks for your responses to my questions/comments, I'm gonna ruminate on a few of them a bit longer before closing them.Now I'll be very interested to see what Sasata has to say after me.. Buttonwillowite (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm about half way through the article you gave me and have found answers to a couple of your questions up above. I've also made a few tweaks on some of the additional remaining points. More later. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've finished adding the info from the source you provided (thank you SO much!), and I think I've taken care of the majority of the rest of your points above. There's a bit more work I want to do, but I think I've mostly finished tweaking (for now...). Dana boomer (talk) 02:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to look over the article again once the expansion is getting close to wrapping up, but I'll just say that it's looking great! Thanks again for tackling this article. It's been a good learning experience for me as well. Buttonwillowite (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments from a quick readthrough. I'm going to focus on content for now, as I think the article needs some further expansion to meet criterion 3 (broad coverage). I've just scanned Google Books to get a general idea of what could be added; I'll look through some academic databases soon. Prose and MoS nitpicks will come later. Sasata (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • how big are the seeds? A pic would be good (see here; I think it's public domain.)
  • Added description of seeds, and a picture. (The link above is not only PD, it was already on Commons :) Dana boomer (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • the etymology section seems pretty short to stand on its own; how about combining it with taxonomy? Also, it contains info that is more appropriate to the genus page. What does the specific epithet sativa mean?
  • I think that a sentence on the genus name (which was the original Roman name for what is now L. sativa) is appropriate for the species level article, since it was the original name for the plant being discussed by the article. I've added the translation for sativa. I've now combined taxonomy with etymology - see what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To me, it seems a bit odd to combine taxonomy and biology. It's probably like this now as there's not enough info for a separate taxonomy section (?) So, some more things that could be used to fill out a stand-alone taxonomy section:
  • We know from the taxobox that Linnaeus first officially described the species, but in what year, and in what publication?
  • Are there any synonyms? (Lactuca scariola var. sativa Moris says this), and a few more from here. There's probably a better (i.e. more authoritative) source for taxonomy though; perhaps a plants expert will see this and advise us? See this last ref for additional "medicinal" uses by various cultures around the world.
  • I've added three synonyms that I found, including var sativa from above. The Duke book appears to be giving alternative common names, not Latin synonyms, and most (all?) of the Duke book names look like they're just the word "lettuce" in other languages. In a quick look I haven't found any more synonyms, but if I come across more I'll add them in. The Duke book does look to have some good info on medicinal lore - I'll work on that later. Dana boomer (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Update - Also found a bit more on subspecies and added it in. Dana boomer (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • has there been any molecular phylogenetic analysis that indicates its closest relatives in the genus? This source says L. serriola is its closest relative. See thistoo.
  • Added some on this. I'll have access to a journal database again on Thursday morning, so have a few studies I want to take a look at then. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "It played a role in their religious ceremonies" how so?
  • as a major agricultural crop, I would imagine there has been considerable work done in genetically modifying the plant for disease and insect resistance, improved quality and increased yields, but this is not discussed in the article.
  • Apparently there is no genetically modified lettuce used in commercial agriculture - which was not what I expected. There are a bunch of field trials in progress, though, testing several modifications, so I have added this information. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • the mention of diseases and post harvest diseases is only given a sentence or two … I think this could easily be expanded to a separate (sub)-section. If this were expanded to a couple of paragraphs, we could fit in some pictures of plants infected with various diseases – a worthy encyclopaedic addition, no?
  • You don't think this would be undue weight? I definitely have more sources for what bugs and viruses affect lettuce, but I was worried about getting too in-depth. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely not ... plant diseases probably cost producers xxx (thousands? millions?) dollars in lost revenue yearly (would be good to get a sourced value for this specific plant, if available), and are a significant headache for both large-scale producers as well as the average gardener. I don't think a couple of paragraphs is undue weight for a topic that probably has enough literature to warrant its own standalone article. Sasata (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've split this off into its own section and expanded it. I also found that we actually have a separate article on this subject - the random things you turn up while searching on Google! :) I'm really not sure how far to go with expanding this section... I did some looking and couldn't find anything about what the financial losses are due to disease/bugs/etc...don't know if you've found a source for this in your lit search. If not, I'll keep looking, but I'm not feeling very hopeful of finding anything at the moment. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Usually, with plants that have a long history of traditional medicinal use, we can find corroborating evidence from modern western science. Other than the mention of two sesquiterpene lactones, there isn't any discussion of the other interesting compounds that have been found in this plant.
  • I've added a bit more on one Chinese study I found, plus some defensive compounds (to the cultivation issues section). I haven't been able to find much on Western studies of the health benefits of lettuce - maybe your lit search has turned up more? Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • this source says it's the only commerically-grown Lactuca species
  • a picture of the flowers would be useful; there's not enough space right now, I know, but I'm thinking in the future when there's been more content added :)
  • I'm not a "plant person", so forgive my ignorance, but this source mentions four main varieties that are based on morphology; I'm wondering how this relates to the seven cultivar groups discussed in the article.
  • That source is discussing the most common types, and lumping a couple of them together that are separated in many other sources. The separation of types is based almost completely on morphology - different leaf and heading structures, or uses for different parts (seeds, stems, leaves). Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • what is the source from which the nutritional values were obtained?
  • I'm assuming you mean in the box? The USDA nutritional database (a link is present at the bottom of the box). I can't find a way to link directly to a specific entry in the database, so you have to do a search for it. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How about a direct link to the information (as a citation) to make it easier for the reader to verify? I think the link at the bottom just serves as a convenience link to the website. Sasata (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for these initial comments, Sasata. I haven't written an article on a plant (much less a major agricultural commodity) before, and so I was unsure of what things were appropriate to add in or go into significant detail about. As an aside, my laptop is going to the computer doctor for a new hard drive today, so I will have spotty Internet for the next couple of days. I've addressed (I think!) a good chunk of your comments above, so I don't know if you want to continue with your review or wait for me to finish the rest of them - which may take me until Friday, based on when my computer shows back up. If I have access to another computer during that time, I'll continue to work on your points, but I don't know if that will happen or not. Whichever you would like to do is fine with me. Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not in any particular rush, so take your time. I plan to do a lit review soon, and will post my results here in the next coupla days. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I stole hubby's computer and addressed a few more of the above points :) I look forward to the lit review - most of the journal articles I've found so far have been on really, really specific aspects of lettuce, and way too in-depth for a general overview article, but I hope you'll have better luck. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think I'm about finished with the above points. There are a couple more bits and pieces I plan to add later today, but they're mainly just trivia tidbits. I'm not sure if you have finished your lit search, but I would appreciate your comments on the above regarding whether I have actually addressed them :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Lit search
  • Ok I'm back; sorry about the delay, real life keep interrupting. I just did a lit search and agree that 99% of the articles are too specific for this type of overview. However, I did notice that there's quite a bit of discussion about food-borne illnesses in the literature, much more (proportionally) than the one sentence allotted here. I think you could safely make this into a subsection without worrying about WP:UNDUE (and it's likely the kind of information the average reader wants to know about). Here's some literature that might help:
  • PMID 19842090 (a review article) discusses "… integrated pest management (IPM) programs for lettuce that are aimed at reducing the economic, occupational and dietary risks associated with chemical controls of the past."
  • outbreaks of Listeriosis from pre-packaged lettuce PMID 18847382 review article
  • review of foodborne illnesses in produce in the US from 1973–1997 PMID 15508656 should have some useful summary information
  • Salmonella poisoning should be mentioned; e.g. as in this (PMID 21916661), but it's probably also in one of the review articles above.
  • I have the PDF for a book chapter (Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, Vol. 59 Transgenic Crops IV) that has some extra details on history, production and consumption in various countries, and genetic improvement programs (through conventional breeding as well as biotechnology). Most of it is too-high level for here, but I'm sure you'd be able to find a few good tidbits to add. Shall I email this to you? Sasata (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That pesky real life :) Not a problem, as I was being slow in improving the article. I would love to have the book chapter - thanks for the offer. It will be Monday before I have database access again, so will work on a new food-borne illness section at at that point. Thanks so much for all of your help on this article! Dana boomer (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The IPM article mainly seems to be arguing that people shouldn't be eating tons of pesticides on their food (duh!), but that people also want perfect lettuce - until they don't mind a hole or two, or a brown edge, they're going to be eating pesticide-contaminated lettuce. Basic common sense, at least for those of us who grow food, but I'm not really sure if it belongs in the article. I've integrated the Listeria article, at the same time creating a few food-borne illness section. I apparently don't have access to the 1973-1997 review article or the salmonella article. If you have access to these, could you e-mail them to be? I would be quite interested to see them, especially the review article. I have received the book chapter (thank you very much!), and should have a chance to read through it and integrate the material tonight. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears I don't have access to Friedman et al. (2004), either (you can see a 2-page preview here though). Someone from WP:RESOURCE could probably get it for you though. Also, check out this CDC page which has similar information. I just emailed Gajraj 2012. Sasata (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've integrated the Gajraj article and the CDC article, and I think the article now has a pretty decent coverage of food-borne illnesses. Note to self, those were probably not the best articles to read while trying to eat a dinner that consisted mostly of vegetables... :) For some reason, my virus scanner then decided to time out, so I have not been able to access the book chapter tonight - will try to do so again in the morning. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've now integrated the book article. The majority of it was really specific with regards to genetic modifications, but I did glean some good general stuff, too. I'm still working on the rest of Cas's comment below, but I think I'm ready for further comments from you?! Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • (Butting in from me) - I like the improvements, and agree on combining etymology with taxonomy (I do this with almost all of my bio articles as there is so often cross discussion on definition, derivation of names and classification.) But I notice that paragraph 2 is about description and distribution, neither of which are taxonomy. I think a description is pretty crucial, basic description of its attributes etc. There should be some more basic info to get in here too (size range of heads etc.)
also - agree on the issue with broader articles in that one has to draw a line and not use the masses of esoteric/specialised articles, however I feel there is a bit of a hole in not having a cuisine/culinary uses section - surely some discussion of its use in salads should be in the article?

Good work though! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! This has been a fascinating article to work on, and its definitely teaching me about all of the different parts that go into a major food article! I can't believe I missed a section on culinary uses - I guess the info is just so obvious to me that I didn't bother to add it in here :) I'll probably get to adding a section on that tonight. Regarding the description, do you think this should be its own section? I'm a little worried about getting too many small sections... So far, basic descriptions of lettuce in general are being a little hard to find, but I'll do some digging to see if I can find more information on head size, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah - small sections can be tricky, especially with a widescreen. I'd think there is some more material which can go into a description section, which I'd put either directly under the lead or after Taxonomy and etymology (my own preference is the latter, but most other folks the former). More info would be flower colour, size of leaves, do they have a petiole, veins, they are described as "colourful" - (which colours?) Flower structure, and time of year in nature that flowers appear (and seed ripen). Seedlings/cotyledons. All this would buff it. I'd also add some broad notes maybe on global variation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've added a culinary uses section with some general information - anything else that you would suggest? I've also broken out the description section, and will work tomorrow on adding information on the points you mention - thanks for giving me a direction to go in on this. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been working on expanding the description section and am to the point where I could use additional comments. I answered as many of your points above as I could find information for. What exactly were you looking for on seedlings? Anything else that you can think of? Thanks so much for your comments - it makes me much more confident taking this to FAC when a bunch of bio people have already looked over it :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • here's some comments about the prose and MoS (will probably have more later): Sasata (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy and etymology

  • "L. sativa is a member" shouldn't start a section/paragraph with an abbreviation
  • link Lactuca, synonyms, subspecies, varieties, bolting
  • make sure there's a non-break space in short-form binomials to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • I think I got all of them; please let me know if I missed anything. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "It is the only member of the Lactuca genus to be grown commercially." there must be a better place for this than this section
  • Moved it to the production section - not sure if this is the best place or if you had something else in mind. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • please put the synonyms (and ref for the syns in the parameter "synonyms_ref" in the taxobox
  • "L. scariola is itself a synonym for L. serriola" for FAC, I'd like to see a clearer explanation of how the subspecies and varieties relate to the cultivars, and perhaps a complete listing of all the subtaxa that have been described (maybe … I don't know how many there are and if these infrageneric designations are used widely in the literature)
  • If you go to this page and scroll down to where L. sativa starts, you can see the mess that is lettuce cultivars, subspecies and groups. These names are not widely used in the literature, from what I have read. For example, iceberg lettuce is also known as the "Capitata group", and besides a "group", has also been known as a type, a convariety, a subspecies and a variety - and that's just one cultivar! If you think more information on this should be included, maybe we could do some of the basic information, such as that romaine/cos lettuce is sometimes known as Lactuca sativa L. var. longifolia, and put it in the cultivars section along with each type. The few times I saw these mentioned in the literature, just a handful (longifolia, crispa, capitata and one or two others) were given, and even these weren't given very often. Dana boomer (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • the second half of the first paragraph doesn't really belong to either taxonomy or etymology
  • Moved it to the Description section. Again, don't know if that's what you had in mind. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


  • why does the first sentence of this section discuss the range?
  • Because I didn't know where else to put it? Do you have a place you think it would better fit? Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • link/gloss variegated, taproot, pollen
  • "… were found in varieties from Asia" … and are no longer found there?
  • Fixed.
  • "3 feet (0.91 m) need to adjust the convert template for equal # of sig figs for input and output
  • "The flowers form 3 to 4 millimetres (0.12 to 0.16 in) compressed, obovate" this is a bit awkward because the measurement descriptor is adjectival but is followed by another adjective … how about "The flowers form compressed, obovate (teardrop-shaped) dry fruits that do not open at maturity, measuring 3 to 4 mm long." Note I left out the imperial conversion (not sure if it's that useful for distances so small), and I shortened millimetre (Brit. Eng) to mm to match with cm given earlier.
  • Done. I wasn't sure if we were supposed to convert with measurements this tiny. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Between the late 16th century and the early 18th century, many varieties began to be developed in Europe," began to be -> were (any meaning lost?)
  • Not really. Some of the varieties developed during this time period were later tweaked a bit, but it's still completely valid to say that many varieties were developed during this time. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


  • link overwintering, perhaps pipe pH to soil pH, cross, selective breeding
  • 32°F needs convert
  • "this life increases to a half-life of 500 years for vaporized nitrogen and 3,400 years for liquid nitrogen; this advantage was lost if seeds were not frozen promptly after harvesting." Should replace "was" and "were" with "is" and"are", unless it's stated explicitly that these are the results from an experiment. As an aside, I wonder how they figured out these numbers without time travel?
  • Changed. I was also wondering about it something important to find out? Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Grown for its seeds, which are pressed to extract the oil, used mainly for cooking" incomplete sentence


  • convert for 23.62 million tons
  • "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" should define the acronym FAO (used in the table)
  • "…in that country it ranks third in vegetable consumption behind tomatoes and oranges." umm, aren't those fruits?
  • Picky, picky :) Changed to "produce", which I think safely covers both. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition and health

  • "Salmonella bacteria, including the uncommon Salmonella braenderup type, have also seen outbreaks traced to contaminated lettuce." sounds awkward … the bacteria "saw" the outbreaks
  • Changed to "caused outbreaks...", although I'm not sure how much better this is... Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Lettuce is sometimes found in lotions for use on sunburns and rough skin." How about "Lettuce extracts are sometimes used in skin creams and lotions."
  • Oops. I changed this back without realizing. Is the current wording acceptable? When I read this statement, I was curious as to *why* lettuce extracts are included. Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "A 2004 Chinese study found that frequent physical exercise and the consumption of raw vegetables, including lettuce, decreased the risk of breast, lung, gastric and colorectal cancer." Don't think this should go in, it's ringing WP:MEDMOS alarm-bells (two main problems: not a review article, and these putative health benefits cannot be ascribed to lettuce alone)
  • Removed. I wasn't particularly fond of it either, but it was the closest I found to answering your call above for more medicinal studies (and yes, I know you said Western medicine, and this is a Chinese study...). Not sure if you found anything else in your lit search? Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

One final round of nitpicks

  • as a common cultivated species with a worldwide distribution, I don't think adding the location to the taxobox picture adds value
  • please add the authorities (with links) to the taxobox synonyms
  • possibly useful lead links: variety, nutrient deficiencies, crosses, Lactuca, gene pool
  • add convert for 23.62 million tons in the lead
  • "...has many identified scientific groups" perhaps change scientific to taxonomic (and link)
  • you might want to scan the article throughout to reword instances of the passive voice, e.g.
  • "During the 81–96 AD reign of Domitian, began the tradition of serving..."
  • "The poaching of lettuce continued..."
  • "... or possible lettuce properties that cause an inability for the bacteria ..."
  • I have a really hard time seeing passive voice. I think I've addressed the above, but didn't find anymore. However, it's quite possible that I missed some (or a lot) so please feel free to point out more if you see them. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • link food-borne illness, narcotic
  • suggest barrenness -> infertility
  • minor ref nitpicks:
ensure all scientific names are italicized (even if they aren't in the original titles; our formatting should be consistent)
  • add the date created or last modified if available for websites (e.g. refs #6, #20); author is available for ref #30
  • watch for double periods (refs #6, 14, 42)
  • author name format is different in ref #10; check throughout for author display consistency (e.g. is "and" included before the last author or not? commas or semicolons as separators?)
  • I can't seem to open the PDF for ref #15, does it work for you?
  • It works fine for me, and it's not that big (only 6 pages), so I'm not sure what the issue is... Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Must be a problem on my end then (I get the message "Bad encrypt Dictionary"). Sasata (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • endashes for pg. ranges (#17, #40, #43)
  • 41 needs more details; if it's "chapter IV", then it's part of a larger work that should be indicated
  • "Foodborne Pathog Dis." spell out all journal titles in full (or not, just be consistent)
  • don't need month of publication in #40, #43
  • Why? Isn't it better to give more information if we have it? Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Realistically, I don't believe that information is going to be any extra help for the reader trying to find the reference, given that all of the other essential information is there. It's more about consistency (for FAC; it's really not a big deal...); if this information is included for these two journal refs, it should be included for the other refs too.
  • the "Notes" aren't really notes in this case; I prefer the headers "References" and "Cited literature"
  • Meh. Notes and references are my usual go-to headings, but if references and cited literature are the standard for plant articles, I'm not too bothered. Changed. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • need consistent title case in "References" Sasata (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Individual replies to things I had questions/comments on. Everything else should be taken care of. Dana boomer (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New section for Buttonwillowite (talk)Edit

In medicine and lore section:

  • Something that's bothering me about this section is the "early american belief" about small pox. Early, to my American mind, could imply an indigenous native american belief, but it appears that the source came from interviewing non-indigenous people around the 1930s[3](page 253). Would it be possible to make "early" a little more clear? Buttonwillowite (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, it's not clear how widespread this belief was. The authors of the book only interviewed people within one county of Illinois. Buttonwillowite (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't see the source page in Dictionary of Plant Lore that relates to this claim, so I'm assuming the Hyatt source you linked is the Hyatt source discussed in the Dictionary. Anyway, I've tweaked this sentence to make it (hopefully) more obvious that I meant European settlers, not Native Americans, and that this wasn't a country-wide belief. Let me know what you think. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is the same source. Same book name and year of publication. I think the wording is better now, thanks! Buttonwillowite (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • About the Iranian's belief that lettuce seeds could cure typhoid, the source cited states that "Iranians suggest the seeds for typhoid". I think that saying the Iranian's believe that lettuce can "cure" typhoid may be overreaching. If you can find the source cited by the book to get a better understanding of what was meant, that would be great. Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked this statement to be not quite so broad. The source says that it comes from "Duke 1983", and I can't find any further bibliographic information, so I'm really not sure what the source cited by the source is. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Where does the statement for the liver come from? It doesn't seem to come from the cited source. Buttonwillowite (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The cited source says "it has been used for liver complaints since early times." Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick question from SmartSE (talk)Edit

The article mentions that China is the main producer of lettuce - do you know what they use it for? I presume that it is unlikely to be exported since it is perishable. Do they eat salad or cook with it? Not majorly important, but would be nice to include if we can. Otherwise the article looks good! SmartSE (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

SmartSE, I apologize for not responding to you sooner - I saw your note, found an answer, and then forgot to actually...answer :) Anyway, according to this, China consumes a significant portion of its production domestically, so in actuality, the US exports more than China does. Also, lettuce can definitely be exported - it has a shelf life of a few weeks, or at least specific mass-produced varieties do - it is just more likely to be to contiguous countries (the US exporting to Canada, China exporting to Russia) than across ocean, and has to go by faster shipment than putz-along cargo ships. Not sure if any of this should be added in, or if it's just good food for thought? Dana boomer (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Final comments

  • I'm happy to pass this as a GA now, I believe it meets all the requirements. I think it's pretty close to being ready for a FAC run too, but you might want to run it by someone else for a prose check (not saying it's bad or anything, but more eyes are good) and I suspect some sections could be expanded slightly (but I'm deliberately vague about this, it's just a hunch). Thank-you for your work on this highly-viewed article, and thanks to the additional reviewers who provided useful comments! Sasata (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I also want to say thanks and congratulations to Dana boomer. Again. It's really exciting to see so much work done on this article. I'll be keeping an eye on it, and hope to see it at FAC someday! Buttonwillowite (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the thorough review, Sasata, and thank you to everyone else too, for your comments. I do plan to put the article through PR, as soon as my current one's done, for another check on prose and things that I may have missed. MfBw, when you get to a spot on Almond where you'd like some extra eyes, please let me know - I'm happy to take a look! Thanks again to everyone, Dana boomer (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from EauOoEdit

Lettuce contains several defensive compounds, including sesquiterpene lactones, and other natural phenolics such as flavonol and glycosides, which help to protect it against pests; certain varieties contain more than others, and some selective breeding and genetic modification studies have focused on identifying and producing varieties with larger amounts of these compounds for increased pest resistance.[36]

Can you quote me from the report where it says they are attempting to produce varieties with larger amounts? Thanks. Eau (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The source says "The resistance seems to reside in the latex. If this resistance can be characterized and transferred to horticulturally acceptable varieties of romaine lettuce, the need for insecticide applications would be greatly diminished." Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is all I could find also. It says does not say "larger amounts," so please change. Eau (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
If they're trying to transfer this to commercial varieties, they're trying to produce commercial varieties with larger amounts. I've tweaked the sentence a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
No, that is not the only means of increasing the resistance, adding larger amounts, the scientists.could, as in the cases of other plants, add the generic resistance to different locations, tweak the molecule to make it more powerful and add lesser amounts, this is original research on your part, an assumptiom that increased insect resistance is always due to larger volumes of insecticides. That is not how it works, and it is not how it is always done for very obvious reasons. Eau (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please return the first fact tag. What you call the florets are the flowers, this is the correct term for a Asteraceae flower. However, what you and the source call a flower is an inflorescence, please find a orrect source. Eau (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want information changed that is currently sourced to a reliable source, the duty is upon you to find a "correct" source. Dana boomer (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I will just add a disputed tag, maybe there is also a contradictory tag to warn readers your information contradicts everything else in Wikipedia on the topic. And, I am a volunteer, please don't insert "the earth is the center of the universe," declare the source reliable, then command me the duty to replace your error. The duty does not exist. Eau ([[User talk:|talk]]) 23:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
First, your dictatorial manner does not make for a collegial editing environment. Second, please don't add major cleanup banners to featured articles when you only have an issue with one word in the entire article. The cycle is bold, revert, discuss, not bold, revert, slap an even bigger tag on the article. The Asteraceae article itself says that the inflorescence is "generally referred to as flower head" - if you would like to change "flower" to "flower head", that's fine, but I see no reason to use a term that many readers won't understand - especially when the source doesn't use that term. And yes, when an editor wants to change information that is already reliably sourced, it is upon them to find new sourcing, not to demand that others do so. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You're the one dictating my duties. And you miss the point: if the source gives false information, it is not reliable. And your fight to keep an unreliable source suggests your other sources in this article will be faulty also. I don't demand that you find new sourcing, I simply demand you remove unreliable sourcing, but I will remove it myself. And, I will add a statement to the request for mainpage that I dispute the factual accuracy of this article, and a notice here that I dispute the factual accuracy, you agree it is inaccurate, but refuse to allow the factual inaccuracy to be noted for the reader. Eau (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I added a disputed tag for the original botany. The Wikipedia article on the Asteraceae would be a helpful starting point for anyone who wants to correct the information. Eau (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disputed accuracy, original research, unreliable sourcesEdit

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 SourceEdit

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. (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Worthy of Note?Edit

Lettuce is now the first foodstuff to be grown and consumed in space. [4] --ERAGON (talk) 12:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Lactuca pronounciationEdit

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 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 modifiedEdit

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 2018Edit

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. ( (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 CarteletTalk 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 valuesEdit

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.[5]

This update would also remove the chicory problem: chicory (Cichorium intybus/endivia) is not a variety of lettuce (Lactuca sativa). (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>2019Edit

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.[6]

This would remove the chicory confusion, because chicory (Cichorium intybus/endivia) is not a variety of lettuce (Lactuca sativa). (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. (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)
Return to "Lettuce" page.