Talk:Rosa × damascena

message: I am never understanding total removal of a persons thoughtfull contribution without any discussion or suggestions on how to improve an edit. This edit seems most relevant and while needing some work, certainly does not constitute removal. People would never behave so calously in person. Try a more positive approach please and contribute constructively.  Thank you.
:Sorry to have upset you. Believe me, I thought hard before deleting that. Now that you have put it back, the addition will require an enormous amount of clean-up, which probably won't be achieved for some months. But more importantly, if a stand isn't made against dumping this sort of waffle into Wikipedia the problem will become overwhelming. It already is overwhelming in much of the botanical part of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia should be about solid information, without unnecessary repetition. Please sign your posts by typing four tilde's. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

message: Would the use of the rose as the symbol of the Tudors belong into this article as well? If so, to what extent? Would a link suffice or is a short mentioning in order?
--Ondinereide (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to need a short paragraph. As far as I can tell, the Lancaster red rose was "R. gallica", the York rose was R. alba semiplena, and the Tudor rose was a heraldic combination of the two. There is a cultivar of R. damascena that is named for the conflict 'York and Lancaster', but it isn't in any real sense the Tudor rose. If you can trace the origin of  'York and Lancaster', that would be a great addition (I don't know if it is known when or by whom it was named). Nadiatalent (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol of the Tudors

message: This text was added, unsupported by any citations, so I have moved it here.
"'Rosa × damascena is a cultivated flower, no longer found growing wild alot,it is found in Syria though,in a village called Marah,where it grows wild there" Nadiatalent (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition removed 

message: Removing this from the article. The town was not founded by Turkish immigrants, as there was no Turkey by the time it was founded. The turks that may have been there could have been Ottoman invaders. In fact, the town was founded by Bulgarians that previously had a town on the other side of the river, but fled to what's now Kazanlak because of the Turkish outrage against them. This part also quotes no reference to back up that claim. On the other hand, the official website of Kazanlak municipality(http://www.kazanlak.bg) gives exactly the story that I just told you. I would trust their historians. The Wikipedia page on Kazanlak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazanlak) also contradicts the claims that Kazanlak was founded by Turkish immigrants.78.86.82.106 (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The town of Kazanlak Bulgaria was founded by Turkish immigrants" 

message: This section lacks citations and is a repeat of the culinary uses previously described in the article. Its single citation doesn't mention history, current wedding traditions, or beauty product usage of rose water. teatimer (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition Removed: Rose Water 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Rose 154.121.55.81 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rose damascena