From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

User Zefr revoked new Myth section in Carrot article[edit]

Regarding page:
Audit log shows user Zefr undid update citing "may be true but content & source are weak".

Response from user Gedium:
1) "may be true" is incorrect as it is true. References below followed by reasoning followed by summary.

"The retinal must diffuse from the vision cell, out of the eye, and circulate via the blood to the liver where it is regenerated. In bright light conditions, most of the retinal is not in the photoreceptors, but is outside of the eye. It takes about 45 minutes of dark for all of the photoreceptor proteins to be recharged with active retinal, but most of the night vision adaptation occurs within the first five minutes in the dark. Adaptation results in maximum sensitivity to light. In dark conditions only the rod cells have enough sensitivity to respond and to trigger vision."
"Rhodopsin in the human rods is insensitive to the longer red wavelengths, so traditionally many people use red light to help preserve night vision. Red light only slowly depletes the rhodopsin stores in the rods, and instead is viewed by the red sensitive cone cells."
"Therefore, using red light to navigate would not desensitize the receptors used to detect star light."

"Carotenoids that contain unsubstituted beta-ionone rings (including beta-carotene, alpha-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin and gamma-carotene) have vitamin A activity (meaning that they can be converted to retinal), and these and other carotenoids can also act as antioxidants."

"Rods make use of three inhibitory mechanisms (negative feedback mechanisms) to allow a rapid revert to the resting state after a flash of light."
"The decrease in the concentration of calcium ions stimulates the calcium ion-sensitive proteins, which would then activate the guanylyl cyclase to replenish the cGMP, rapidly restoring its original concentration."

"A rod cell is sensitive enough to respond to a single photon of light[9] and is about 100 times more sensitive to a single photon than cones."

"Retinal, also called retinaldehyde or vitamin A aldehyde, is one of the many forms of vitamin A (the number of which varies from species to species). Retinal is a polyene chromophore, bound to proteins called scotopsins and photopsins, and is the chemical basis of animal vision. Retinal allows certain microorganisms to convert light into metabolic energy."
"Retinylidene is the divalent group formed by removing the oxygen atom from retinal, and so opsins have been called retinylidene proteins."

"Vision begins with the photoisomerization of retinal. When the 11-cis-retinal chromophore absorbs a photon it isomerizes from the 11-cis state to the all-trans state. The absorbance spectrum of the chromophore depends on its interactions with the opsin protein to which it is bound; different opsins produce different absorbance spectra."

"Rods, whose photopigments regenerate more slowly, do not reach their maximum sensitivity for about half an hour."

"The carrot gets its characteristic, bright orange colour from β-carotene, and lesser amounts of α-carotene, γ-carotene, lutein and zeaxanthin.[22] α- and β-carotenes are partly metabolized into vitamin A ..."

"Examples for photoreceptor pigments include retinal (for example in rhodopsin), ..."

"Men in the prison study developed the first signs of scurvy about 4 weeks after starting the vitamin C free diet, whereas in the British study, six to eight months were required, possibly due to the pre-loading of this group with a 70 mg/day supplement for six weeks before the scorbutic diet was fed.[44]"

My analysis for a logical argument is that:
(re 1.8) Carrots contain beta-carotene, and less amounts of alpha-carotene which are partly metabolised into vitamin A.
(re 1.2) Carotenoids that contain beta-carotene, alpha-carotene can be converted to retinal.
(re 1.5) Vitamin A is metabolised into vitamin A aldehyde also known as Retinal.
(re 1.5) Retinal is a polyene chromophore, bound to proteins called scotopsins and photopsins, and is the chemical basis of animal vision.
(re 1.6) Vision begins with the photoisomerization of retinal.
(re 1.4) A rod cell is sensitive enough to respond to a single photon of light.
(re 1.1) Rhodopsin in the human rods is insensitive to the longer red wavelengths.
(re 1.3) Rods make use of three inhibitory mechanisms (negative feedback mechanisms) to allow a rapid revert to the resting state after a flash of light.
(re 1.1) It takes about 45 minutes of dark for all of the photoreceptor proteins to be recharged with active retinal.
(re 1.1) The retinal must diffuse from the vision cell, out of the eye, and circulate via the blood to the liver where it is regenerated.
(re 1.7) Rods, whose photopigments regenerate more slowly, take 30 minutes to reach maximum sensitivity.
(re 1.9) Examples for photoreceptor pigments include retinal (for example in rhodopsin).

When people say something similar to "Eat your carrots as it helps you see better at night" this is incorrect as:
1) Carrots are only one source of beta-carotene, alpha-carotene. A healthy diet contains many other sources of beta-carotene, alpha-carotene.
2) The human eye rod minimum detection is 1 unit of photon.
3) The human body already has a limit on retinal quantity production.
4) Inhibitory mechanisms revert to a resting state.
5) Retinal is regenerated by the liver.
So the resting state is never increased as the human eye rod has already evolved to the maximum sensitivity of photons, thus carrots do not improve night vision sensitivity.
The only circumstance when carrots could help is when a diet is insufficient of beta-carotene, and alpha-carotene. Recalling that the human body has a buffer (i.e. blood plasma) where in the event the diet no longer provides required vitamins the buffer is used until depleted at which time organ failure commences. Vitamin C has about 2 weeks of buffer (source secondary, not recorded in, although when I locate the secondary source I will update, where when exhausted results in physical symptoms at about 4 weeks (re 1.10).

2) Australian Geographic is a reputable publisher, however Outdoor Survival Bible (OSB) book lacks a reference section which does not make it ineligible, perhaps not a preferable source in user Zefr opinion. If OSB had a reference I would investigate the reference, and then do the same if the reference source referenced another source.
Question 2.1) Do all references have to be exhaustively verified to reach the original publication?
Question 2.2) Of the thousands of articles I have read many do not reference the initial source, so why has user Zefr required this to be mandatory?
Question 2.3) Encyclopedia is a tertiary source by definition which must reference sources. OSB is a secondary source and is permitted to be referenced.

3) This update brings to other users attention that they can update the part and sources of the "Myth" section. Which currently had no entry although the Myth is extensively well known from my personal experience, so is appropriate to have an entry addressing it.

Gedium (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The revert and subsection titles in question follow[edit]

Myth: See in the dark Gedium added: "Sadly, while carrots are full of dietary fiber, antioxidants, and minerals, they don't actually help you see in the dark. This urban myth was put about by the Royal Air Force during the Second World War to explaining why they were enjoying such success during night air battles, and was actually used to disguise advances in radar technology and the use of red lights on instrument panels." Reference provided: |last=Beattie |first=Rob |title=Australian Geographic Outdoor Survival Bible |date=2011 |page=49

Two points are disputed with the one reference Gedium used.

1) Carrots are not "full" of dietary fiber (only 2.8 g per 100 g consumed, see article table) and dietary minerals (all minerals analyzed are low in content, < 10% Daily Value, see table). Science and regulatory guidelines for food labeling accept only vitamins A, C and E as dietary antioxidants. Carrots do not contain significant amounts of vitamins C and E, but the vitamin A value, as provitamin A beta-carotene, is significant (104% vitamin A equivalent for the Daily Value, table). However, there is no evidence in the literature as WP:MEDRS that eating carrots = high vitamin A content contributing to eye health and improved night vision = myth about pilots eating carrots to improve night vision during WWII. The reference provided cannot be a WP:MEDRS source for carrot vitamin A and vision benefits.
2) The source provided, an outdoor guide not likely by its title to be specific about carrots, vitamin A, vision health or pilot dietary practices in WWII, is not verifiable, so fails WP:SECONDARY and WP:V.

Finally, the discussion of this myth in the carrot article has low content value and seems to be Gedium's own interpretation, falling under WP:NOTESSAY. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Total vitamin A? 104% or 334% ?[edit]

please see It says 334 % of DV. It refers to USDA. Where as Wikipedia says 104% DV. Why so much difference ?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talkcontribs) 03:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to clarify: the source (version SR-21; 2008 of the USDA National Nutrient Database) reports 16,705 IU of vitamin A per 100 g of raw carrots yielding 334% DV whereas the most recent version SR-28 of the USDA database, here reports 835 μg of vitamin A Retinol Activity Equivalents (RAE) per 100 g, converting to 104% DV. Vitamin A reporting readily leads to confusion because the relevant units may be presented as provitamin A beta-carotene (μg), vitamin A RAE (microgram, μg), or converted vitamin A (IU). Quoting from the Oregon State University source: "provitamin A carotenoids like β-carotene are less easily digested and absorbed, and must be converted to retinol and other retinoids by the body after uptake into the small intestine. The efficiency of conversion of provitamin A carotenes into retinol is highly variable, depending on factors such as food matrix, food preparation, and one’s digestive and absorptive capacities."
In the United States and Canada, the Recommended Dietary Allowance is reported as vitamin A RAE, explained here as 900 μg RAE for adult males and 700 μg for adult females, or an average of 800 μg for adults. In the Nutrition section and table, we have entered the 835 μg of RAE which the Wikipedia nutrition table converts to 104% DV per 100 g consumed (835/800 μg = 104%). --Zefr (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

seed size[edit]

The article now contains a fancy image of highly magnified carrot seeds -- but the image contains no explicit or implicit scale information, obscuring the fundamental truth that carrot seeds are quite small. It would be good to have a similar image that includes a scale instead. Also an accompanying image of carrot seeds in the palm of a hand or some other similar image that conveys actual size in implicit natural way. - (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think in addition to might be better and I should be able to arrange that. John Alan Elson WF6I A.P.O.I. 01:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Now I can clearly see that they are bigger and more interesting in appearance than I expected! Might be good to do the same for many other seeds? - (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Stereo image
Right frame 
Carrot seeds
I do not think the inclusion of this clunky image in the article is an improvement. I removed it but I see that it has been replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It shows the details of carrot seeds, which is quite relevant to the topic. Because carrot seeds are so small a magnified image shows details not otherwise visible. John Alan Elson WF6I A.P.O.I. 12:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The detail is good, but the 3D template seems unnecessarily complicated, particularly when the picture itself is quite pixelated and doesn't give much benefit when viewed stereoscopically. I've replaced it with a single image cropped from the 3D one. --McGeddon (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I approve of this change, and of the removal of the specific cultivars. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Citation currently used for orange color origin explicitly says this is a legend[edit]

The article states:

  • The western carrot emerged in the Netherlands in the 17th century,[52] its orange colour making it popular in those countries as an emblem of the House of Orange and the struggle for Dutch independence.[53]

The citation, [53], points to

This citation explicitly refers to this as a "popular legend," and says that it was more likely that simple cooking preference led to the orange carrot being favored.

If a real citation of this legend can be found, then please use it. Otherwise the sentence should be edited to remove the second half, or by making it clear that this is unsubstantiated:

  • The western carrot emerged in the Netherlands in the 17th century.[52] There is a popular belief that its orange colour making it popular in those countries as an emblem of the House of Orange and the struggle for Dutch independence, although there is little evidence for this.[53]

 Done Plantdrew (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Closing parenthesis missing in first sentence[edit]

The first sentence is missing a closing parenthesis. (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Plantdrew (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do the work yourself[edit]

Learn to respect reasonable edits, don't be so lazy and do the work yourself, and stop squatting on the article. Zedshort (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Is the black photo pollen? If so can we label it?

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

They are seeds. (The grey line in the image's lower left corner shows 1 cm.) I have added that to the caption. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong link to USDA Database[edit]

«Link to USDA Database entry» is link to «11176, Corn, sweet, yellow, canned, vacuum pack, regular pack» — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Table url and other data entries checked or fixed. --Zefr (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

History of colour of carrots[edit]

The section on the history of carrots needs a big clear-up, as does the article in general. It should mention that carrots were not originally orange,but in the eighteenth century, using antioxidants,people made them orange to honour William of Orange.Vorbee (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

General comments[edit]

The article is already of high quality, so comments will be few and minor.

Specific comments[edit]

  • It would be good to mention the 'myth' in the lead.
  • The top view of the inflorescence shows the (typical) dark central floret, which distinguishes the species from close relatives. Why not say this in the caption.
I am not with you here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Done it. The 'inflorescence' photo shows a circular patch of tiny flowers called florets. If you look closely, the middle one is very dark red....
  • I think that carrot jam deserves more of a mention, and the existing sentence seems to be uncited.
  • They may have been used in the Roman Empire; the web is full of dodgy claims about this, however. It might be worth emphasizing the weakness of the evidence, given the apparent certainty of the least scientific of the claims.
  • A photo of purple and yellow carrots would be useful.
Lovely photo!
  • The growth in production is interesting, though the time-reversed presentation of the data is a bit unusual: a simple graph or table (it's possible to get wikicode to plot a bar chart) would be better.
  • The growth in consumption deserves to be explained, if any RS discusses it. (One may guess that something colourful that needs little or no preparation suits the modern world, of course.)
  • I'm not convinced that the 'not to be confused with' hatnote has any value - confusion seems quite unlikely, and this isn't a dictionary.

I think that's about it.

Thank you for taking on the review. I have dealt with most of your points but have not created a bar graph, a skill I have not yet attempted. Nor have I added a citation for the carrot jam sentence; I could quote an ancient cookbook or remove it if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's fine for GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Chomosome number of 2n = 9 ist wrong[edit]

I just checked the chromosome number of D. carota subsp. sativus : According to the paper I found it is 2n= 18 and not 2n= 9. So it's 9 chomosome pairs but 2 n is still 18. Source: "Karyoptype analysis of Daucus carota L. using Giemsa C-Banding and FISH of 5S and 18S/25S rRNA specific genes" O. SCHRADER , R. AHNE and J. FUCHS; CARYOLOGIA 2003

An Nasr Atair (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have changed this and added a reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


While this may not necessarily fall under this as images 'sandwiching' text are vertical, I personally think some images would look better in a gallery. What do other people think? JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. For a general encyclopedia article on carrots, we seem to have an inordinate collection of tubers, flowers and seeds which could be thinned out per WP:NOTGALLERY. --Zefr (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there were too many images and I'm not keen on galleries, but one of the flower images could go in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carrot. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2017[edit]

May I edit this page Semeyer01 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talkcontribs) 17:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018[edit]

The history of color says orange carrots originated in the Netherlands in the 17th century. The picture in the article shows an orange carrot in a book from the 6th century. Elsewhere in the discussion it was pointed out the the 17th century Dutch orange is a myth.

Could you please rectify these discrepancies? (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: The Vienna Dioscurides that this image was taken from has been restored many times over the centuries, so it is unclear if the illustration is what a sixth-century reader would have seen. That said, the History and Cultivars sections should make similar statements about the color issue, so I've attempted to reconcile them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

claim 'carrot tops = toxic' weak/unsolid[edit]

Currently the 'consumption' section contains said claim. It has 2 reference links. Both have in common that they lead to inaccessable books. At best such kind of references prove the claim insufficiently. If such a bold claim is raised, it has to be sufficiently supported by respective references, which give everyone direct access to information proving the claim. By this I'm not saying 'take out the claim', I'm saying that said claim in it's current form reduces the quality of the article and openly marking said weakness of the claim because of insufficient references is the least, which should be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Raw foodism[edit]

This article doesn't inform if carrot can/should be eaten raw, instead of boiled.--MisterSanderson (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The belief that eating carrots improves night vision[edit]

According to the article: "the belief that eating carrots improves night vision is a myth put forward by the British in World War II to mislead the enemy about their military capabilities".

Wait, what?!

Not only there is no reference, but there is no logic in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That's in the lead section, which summarizes the article. Material in the lead need not be referenced if it referenced in the body of the article. See Carrot#Night_vision for references and explanation. Plantdrew (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The supposed reference isn't very conclusive however; But Bryan Legate, assistant curator at the Royal Air Force Museum in London has a different view. “I would say that whilst the [British] Air Ministry were happy to go along with the story [of carrot-improved vision], they never set out to use it to fool the Germans,” Legate says. “The German intelligence service were well aware of our ground-based radar installation and would not be surprised by the existence of radar in aircraft. - might just be replacing one interesting myth with another here. (ref also has nothing on "red lights on instrument panels") Tomtefarbror (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Black carrot[edit]

The first sentence of this article says black carrot cultivars exist but the reference given does not mention this fact. It only lists the 5 colors orange, purple, red, yellow, white. Should consider using a better source specifically for "black carrots" (whose juice I can personally attest has been listed as an ingredient on labels of consumer food items, so their existence is likely). (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Revised with this edit, full article here. Zefr (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)