Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2392afd8d985e37

Jump to content

Talk:Sub rosa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Weeb Dingle in topic Deletion

A ròzsa alatt

[edit]

The paragrapgh:

seems overly specific and redundant. I'm condensing it into:

Aethralis 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

[edit]

Perhaps a brief discussion of the phrase's usage in popular culture should be mentioned. At least one, the Da Vinci Code, uses the term as a relatively important plot device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.148.97 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

There are many, many references to the phrase in both fiction and non-fiction. (It is, after all, a very common figure of speech). Listing the thousands of works that contain this idiom would be of great cost and little value.

174.102.235.187 (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

US Army military intelligence corps

[edit]

In the US Army, the branch insignia for military intelligence includes a rose in the design. Should this be mentioned somewhere? Canine virtuoso (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

J. Edgar Hoover

[edit]

I suggest that this entire section be removed. It has the feel of folk etymology. In addition, I know of no evidence that Hoover's files were ever made available to the C.I.A. Since no sources are cited, I'm wondering whether the author can document any part of it. Garrettepps (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Deletion

[edit]

This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and should not have entries for single words or phrases. If it remains the second section on symbolism should be removed, it is extremely poorly supported and of highly dubious relevance even to the phrase in question.125.168.48.16 (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Agree, totally.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)Reply