Talk:Rosa × damascena

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)

Symbol of the Tudors
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)
 * 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)

'York and Lancaster' is a Damask Rose introduced in 1551 excuse me if I don't name the source though verification should be pretty easy.Andyvancleve (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Addition removed
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)

"The town of Kazanlak Bulgaria was founded by Turkish immigrants"
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)

Addition Removed: Rose Water
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)

"Damascus roses were introduced into England during the reign of Henry VIII and were frequently displayed and scattered at weddings and festivals. Nowadays, they are popular in craft projects and as potpourri ingredients. They are used in wedding favours, gathered together in organza bags or favour boxes, and they replace the traditional Avola sugared almonds to make perfumed keepsakes. They are also used to decorate festive tables. They are also used as hair decorations when attached to hairpins.

The uses of the dried Damascus rose in beauty products are numerous. Soaking Damascus rosebuds in water for three or four days releases a rose essence which can be added to bath water or may be used to rinse hair after shampooing to leave the skin and hair soft with the fragrance of roses. As the gentlest of all astringents, rose water is often used as toner for fair and dry skin or as an anti-ageing product in facial creams. Damascus rose oil also has therapeutic properties that sooth the mind and helps with depression, nervous tension and stress.

Damascus roses are also used in cooking. Rose water and powdered roses are used especially in Indian and Arabic cooking. Rose water was sprinkled on almost all meat dishes, rose powder was added to sauces, yogurts and other desserts. Chicken with rose jam was a valued dish in Persian cuisine. Western cookery today does not make much use of rose water, but Mediterranean cuisine still favours it, especially in such delicacies as rose petal jam. "

Persian origin for Rosa Damasus
I found several sources suggests that Damascus was native to Iran.
 * 1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586833/#B18
 * 2) http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257805075_Microsatellite_analysis_of_Rosa_damascena_from_Pakistan_and_Iran
 * 3) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304423807003482 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:9863:D16:1918:1BEB (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that in the sources provided. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1: "The origin of Damask rose is the Middle East and some evidences indicate that the origin of rose water is Iran"
 * 2: I read that as saying that in Iran people have been propagating the roses from seeds, and selecting those seedlings that produced well in various climates. In Bulgaria and Turkey, which are the main regions of production, clonal propagation is used.
 * 3: I read that as saying the same as number 2, that there is genetic diversity in Iran that could be useful for breeding roses.

Article 1: "There are many evidences that cultivation and consumption of R. damascena in Iran has a long history and Iran is one of its origins" Article 2 notes higher genetic diversity of R. Damascus in Iran over Turkey, Pakistan, and Bulgaria. Article 3 "The wide genetic variation seen for R. Damascus in Iran indicates that Iran is a center of genetic diversity for this species"

Fossil evidence combined with genetic evidence points towards Iran.71.41.122.130 (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't see that statement in article 1. I'm inclined to say that it is not an article about the origins of the rose, but about the uses of the rose, so I don't consider it a very suitable source for this statement.
 * As I noted above, the fact that there is genetic diversity doesn't mean that the original hybrid plant occurred in Iran. It could be simply because people grow the seeds instead of using clonal propagation.
 * As with article 2, article 3 is talking about genetic diversity such as what would arise from generations of propagation by seeds, not phylogenetic deductions about origin.
 * What is the source for your statement about fossil evidence?

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You're right, diversity doesn't guarantee origins, but certainly supports the idea. And as the author in Article 1 soundly suggested based on evidence, Iran is 'one of it's origins'. There is no better evidence, at this point for another origin. It's interesting to note that Damascus is hypothesized to be a crossbreed between of several roses including R. Gallica, of which the American Rose Society says, "Although the exact origin of R. gallica is unknown, records of it appear as early as the twelfth century B.C. where the Persians considered it a symbol of love". http://www.rose.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/History-of-Roses-The-Final-Chapter.pdf So the earliest historical evidence of R. Gallica is Iran. Of course genetic evidence supports depth of R. Gallica in both Souther Europe and West Asia, in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:51EC:69A0:175C:4115 (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, time has also erased information about the origin of R. gallica. I don't have any objection to saying something about the earliest historical record (of R. × damascena since this is the page about that hybrid species) if such information exists, or about a centre of genetic diversity, but to take either of those as meaning that or as evidence that the original hybridization event(s) occurred in Iran is pure conjecture that would violate WP:OR. Since people like to cultivate scented roses, the parent species could have been brought together in a garden, and that garden could be anywhere that human trade had brought them. If a new desirable rose appears in someone's garden, it is a commonplace of human culture that it would be propagated and sent to other places. (I have a damask rose that the person who gave it to me had propagated from a cutting stolen over a fence.) That new scented rose might grow particularly well in a distant place from where it originated, and the industry based on the rose is only likely to arise where it grows well and where it is convenient to dry the petals (not in a rainy place). Even if there was only a single original hybridization that produced only a single plant, people planting the seeds of that plant could produce genetic diversity, and that alone could explain the diversity centre now seen in Iran. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All that I have listed, is reliable, though indirect forms of evidence towards an origin in Iran. You saying that 'maybe cross pollination has led to increase in diversity in Iran', is more speculative, than me saying 'the highest diversity + ancient historical record + first historical record of it's related species support an Iranian origin'. The evidence for an Iranian origin is fairly strong, but by no means should one exclude surrounding Mediterranean regions. That is precisely why the authors of article 1 have suggested Iran as one the origins for the species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:C0E2:F857:8F11:4F91 (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Article 1, as I have said above, is not an acceptable citation for origins: the authors are concerned with current conditions, and hastily wrote a summary of the history, and they did not write that section well. If there was a single origin of the hybrid (as is common with hybrids) then there cannot be "one of the origins". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I would rather reference a scholarly opinion than a random one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.122.130 (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. However, you have taken the opposite approach in the article, by deleting the scholarly work by Iwata et al. in favour of the three items that do not address the basic question of origin except as off-hand poorly written statements. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Nougat-damascene.jpg

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