Talk:Lettuce

Images
I'm moving this image here, because the page seems crowded with images, and there is already an image of Iceberg in the taxobox. Pekinensis 21:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World record
Do we need a reference for the world record inserted by 69.139.227.87? I haven't been able to confirm the information. Pekinensis 21:16, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distinguishing members of the asterales from species that are not really lettuce
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)

Vandalism?
Do you think the second paragraph of "History" was vandalized? Either way, without the citation it should probably be removed. 63.252.64.106 03:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell would someone vandalize an article on lettuce? --71.112.104.213 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. -- Armadillo From Hell 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. 82.33.215.26 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing info
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 202.137.246.190 (talk • contribs)
 * 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.... 84.97.154.181 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition Comparison
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 68.249.203.206 (talk • contribs)
 * 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 ?
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]." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.125.160 (talk) 05:49, 2006 November 22 (UTC)


 * 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 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? &mdash; 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)

From?
I read in World Book that lettuce comes from Iran. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

Reconciling the lettuce map and 'facts and figures'
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)

Layout
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 information
Specifically, it should mention what climate lettuce grows in.128.95.141.35 (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sativa
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 84.85.130.72 (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

i beilieve that alettuce helps dijest your food as a suplimentary laxidive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.62.87.26 (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?
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" lettuce
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 Egyptians
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 157.155.224.6 (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardiness?
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 lettuce
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 sea
I have removed the claim that "Christopher Columbus introduced lettuce to the New World. 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)

Comments from EauOo
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 (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 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 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. --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.

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.

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.

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. Sak ura Cart elet Talk 23:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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.

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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.

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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 18 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)