Talk:Rose water

History section

@Bon courage: Hi, may i suggest you read what the sources say before labeling my edits as "not improving" ? Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

May I suggest you adjust your bad attitude into one compatible with Wikipedia's norms? Bon courage (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Uh ?? so i edit he article in GF, you revert me and when i come here (per WP:BRD) to ask you to read the sources, you ignore my demand, make a personal attack instead and i'm the one who has a bad attitude ? I suggest you to respond properly and engage in a constructive discussion or this will end at ANI. ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your assumption that my edit was not based on reading what was in the source was in bad faith, and your "demand" impudent. Your edit took us further away from the source than at present. Bon courage (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Let me see if i got this one straight ...

so, source number 6 says "Rose petals were already used in Persian cookery to perfume and flavor dishes long before the technique of distilling rose water was developed", this isn't in the article, and this edit of mines says the same thing with my words to comply with copyrights rules of Wiki. The two other sources deal with the origin of rose water, i left them alone. I edited the article in good faith, improved it by sticking to what the cited source says and your above responses are both deterring and constitute personal attacks. there is nothing "impudent" in demanding to an editor to check what the sources say, yet you still failed to justify your revert. I have no problem with rewording it with other words than mines, since the current version of the article is too far from what the cites say.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I know what the sources say, and your summary was not an improvement over the current text. Bon courage (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly ? Where is the article mentioning that the Persians cultivated flowers to obtain perfumes for a long time (before developing rose water) ? This information sounds quite relevant here since it reflects the long process which led to the discovery of rose water. The current wording is too far from what the source 6 says.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What is "a long time"? 5 months? 5 centuries? See WP:RELTIME. The sources are not certain of the Persian origin either. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The wording about a long time is what the source says, it's not our job, as editors, to give our own interpretation. Removing a content that gives some perspective about the development of rose water is irrelevant. As to the origin, all the source unanimously say that rose water has been "discovered" or "probably discovered" in Persia or by Persian chemists, that is enough.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really, anyway now you see the problems I hope. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really ? What do you mean ? I still don't see why you reverted my edits, which go with what the sources say and give more perspective about the development of rose water. With your rationale, all the sentences like the opening one of the history section "since ancient times" should be removed overall Wikipedia. What are ancient times ? 7 years ago ? 7 centuries ago ? 7000 years ago ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. An opportunity to improve the article there! Your edits did not satisfy WP:V so well as what we have, as I have explained. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Which part of my edits did not satisfy VER exactly ? I just went by what the source says with my words.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Your certainty over origin, your long time, and your claim RW was made into perfumes. Bon courage (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I said "certainly" in my edits ?? where ? Also, While source 8 leaves some room for doubt, sources 6 and 7 give the origin with little doubt. If "long time" was a problem for you (even if, for topics like this one, long time obviously means centuries, not months ...), why not just remove that part instead of a mass revert ? As to RW, don't know what you're talking about.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

RW is "Rose Water". I have explained the revert, and have nothing further to add. Bon courage (talk) 13:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Never said that rose water was made in perfumes. We have a problem here, since you refuse to accept edits that are in compliance with what the cited sources say along with misrepresentation of what they say (like saying that they don't give the origin of rose water with enough certainty while 2 of the 3 do so) and we don't want an edit-war either.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you put roses (not water): "for a long time, the Persians cultivated flowers to obtain perfumes", sourced to a source which says "Rose petals were already used in Persian cookery to perfume and flavor dishes long before the technique of distilling rose water was developed". Bon courage (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I will make another proposal here on the talk when i have time for that, feel free to comment it.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

@Bon courage: I suggest to reword the sentence as follows : "Rose water likely originated in Persia,[sources 6, 7 and 8] however, before the development of the technique of distilling rose water, rose petals were already used in Persian cuisine to perfume and flavor dishes.[source 6]". Sounds closer to what the sources say.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not objection to that if the useless "however" is deleted. Bon courage (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then i'll put the second part of the sentence first, in order to make the junction with the rest of the section.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the revert to an ungrammatical wp:leadsentence

Other editors on this article should review mos:boldsyn. Commas are appropriate for the grammar of

Rose water, also known as rosewater, ...

Rose water, also written rosewater, ...

etc.

but not for simple use of "or", which requires two equivalent sides

Rose water or rosewater ...

If it's really felt that rosewater is truly subordinate in some way, the way to capture that and respect wp:undue isn't to muck up basic English grammar but to just use parentheses

Rose water (also written rosewater) ...

or shunt it to a {{efn}} note. — LlywelynII 20:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@lywelynII, what leads you to suggest that the reverter (me) won't care? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Issues with the History section

Revirvlkodlaku - concerning Special:Diff/1365359325:

1. the removed statement "Since ancient times, roses have been used medicinally, nutritionally, and as a source of perfume" is attributed to the rose water article in Iranica, which does not mention "ancient", "medicine", or "nutrition", and has one statement about attar (oil), not 'rose water'. The Iranica source is fine, but it is not a source for the removed statement (about roses in general, not the water).

2. the statement about "11th century writings" and two sentences beginning "Geographer" then including the weasel statement that "some sources say...", are sourced to a blog website called "eat like a sultan" (!), conspicuously not WP:RS.

3. the paragraph beginning "Rose perfumes are made from rose oil" is not about rose water, but rose oil, a different topic.

The history section would be adequate to link the steaming process of rose petals (making attar) to collection of the water, referenced to the Adamson book (which seems barely adequate about the history of making rose water - WP:V?). See discussion on history sources above from 2023. Zefr (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Zefr, that all sounds fair. I've made a few edits based on your feedback—let me know if it all seems acceptable now. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2026 (UTC)