Jump to content

Talk:Rooh Afza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Copyvio

[edit]

If the article was a copyvio, there is a possibility of re-editing the material so that it not a copy and paste job. Please add or delete as necessary. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can rest assured that such is my intention. I am currently writing copy as quickly as possible, I just wanted to make sure that no legal infringement was present in the interim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.66.111 (talk • contribs)
No problems. Go ahead. I have edited out most of the "advertorial" material and attributed some of the text to the manufacturer. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, your dedication is quite impressive indeed. Thanks for the help. 24.175.66.111 04:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

source cited

[edit]

Searched on Google for the Ham.. Lab website and found 3 links that were broken. 1 was a .com and 2 were for .pk.

None worked, look forward to seeing more info and links soon Lsjzl 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 19:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruafza?

[edit]

Is this beverage the same as the ingredient ruafza that I seen referenced in various recipes for "Punjabi Lassi" (eg., http://vahrehvah.com/Punjabi+Lassi:2969)? I have not been able to find a definition or reference for ruafza elsewhere. Should a redirect be added from that entry to this article? Mattmwise (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable?

[edit]

In the list of fruits, carrots are listed. Perhaps this is a difference in cultures, but in North America carrots are generally considered a vegetable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.74.105 (talk) 96.50.74.105 (UTC)

You sir! are right. Carrots are vegetables... everywhere! --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix

[edit]

The article currently mentions a fine of "four lakhs taka." Because most people outside India won't know what that means, please substitute regular numbers for this localized Hindi term. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was formulated by Muhammad Kabeeruddin

[edit]

According to Urdu book based on Rooh Afza it shows it was formulated by Muhammad Kabeeruddin and introduced by Hakim Hafiz Abdul Majeed. Book name is by Taariekh–e–Rooh–e–Afza by Hakim Hafiz Abdul Majeed. —•|Botu Yadav (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)|•—[reply]

Disputed subsection

[edit]

I have had this article on my watchlist for several years and noticed an edit war regarding a section regarding a fine levied on the drink in one country, Bangladesh. The disputed section only concerns Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Bangladesh, not the drink in general, which was made in colonial India and is now found across three republics. As it concerns only Bangladesh, the disputed paragraph could be moved to that article. Additionally, I notice that the paragraph didn't reveal the outcome of the case, which according to the article, resulted in the withdrawl of the information. Per WP:NPOV, that should probably added after the section is moved. Since it does not currently meet this standard, I have removed the paragaph for now. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 01:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced editor, you already know that this is not how consensus works. You cannot resolve an edit dispute by starting a discussion thread and then immediately edit-warring to force your preferred version. Unilaterally removing long-standing content while opening a discussion goes against the process; we need to discuss the issue and arrive at a consensus first.
Regarding the dispute over Hamdard Bangladesh's claims about Rooh Afza, look at Coca-Cola#Criticism and the Criticism of Coca-Cola articles. Those pages include all controversies concerning Coca-Cola, covering its bottling plants and distributors across the world. Finally, regarding your NPOV concerns -- instead of deleting the entire paragraph, you can simply add the outcome of the case to balance the text. — Longewal (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Coca cola is a product of The Coca-Cola Company. Nobody else produces it. While this is a general soft drink produced by many companies. Kindly don't talk absurd when you know NOTHING about this topic. ~2026-23061-45 (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rooh Afza is a brand name owned by Hamdard India, the other companies are child companies of that company. This is literally what is written in the well sourced lead of the article. Chattenoir (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is a general soft drink produced by many other companies like Dabur, Patanjali Ayurved and more. They have nothing to do with Hamdard. ~2026-23061-45 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sources ( and content) of this article say otherwise. Chattenoir (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article tells "Rooh Afza (Urdu: روح افزا; Hindi: रूह अफ़ज़ा; Bengali: রূহ আফজা; lit. 'Soul Refresher') is a drink which is a concentrated squash.[1]" Which source says the drink is exclusively Hamdard India? ~2026-23061-45 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/food-wine/rooh-afza-hamdard-india-head-rooh-afza-drink-indian-drink-pakistan-bangladesh-cooling-properties-history-partition-8151095/
https://theprint.in/feature/hamdards-rooh-afza-the-medicine-syrup-that-turned-into-luxury-drink-for-india-pakistan/1731459/
https://www.thedailystar.net/culture/news/rooh-afza-the-making-south-asian-icon-4123801
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/4/25/in_pakistan-rooh-afza-scents-memories
https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/rooh-afza-herbal-drink-survived-partition-war-lawsuit-and-many-haters-613458
https://www.hamdard.com.bd/product-details?id=698ad4e4aefd11e962424f24&slug=sharbat-rooh-afza-750-ml
I must say though, even if it wasn't a creation and trademark of Hamdard (which it very clearly is attested by the above sources), a major lawsuit against Hamdard regarding the product would still be relevant for the article! Chattenoir (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very disingenuous to call it a general soft drink when the article is literally about a specific drink produced by Hamdard. — Longewal (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I won't even bother responding to this. — Longewal (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When content is potentially contentious, unreliable, or debatable, the standard is to remove it until consensus is reached. I lift that standard from WP:BLP, which this is not, so if you can find a policy that states the opposite, I'd gladly defer to your thesis. Pistongrinder (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding NPOV, I fail to see how it violates NPOV. If the outcome of the case is attested by sources then this can be added, if sources cannot be found perhaps a needs update template can be added. The way I see it, that is quite a very odd reason to argue NPOV but perhaps you can help me understand.
I do not agree that it "only concerns Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Bangladesh", it is related to the drink so it is relevant. Chattenoir (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The content was about the company, not this drink. I agree that the content has nothing to do with this article. It needs to be kept removed from here.
I would also add that it was never discussed ever before. It was just added without any proper knowledge of Wiki guidelines recently. ~2026-23061-45 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant to the drink, because it is about the drink. Chattenoir (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the legal issues of a company, nothing about the drink. The drink was not the defendant but a company. ~2026-23061-45 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is gaslighting you. LOL. — Longewal (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to also point out that this https://www.whatshot.in/delhi-ncr/did-you-know-your-beloved-rooh-afza-actually-originated-a-century-back-in-old-delhi-c-41942 is the only source which says the recipe is unpatented ( I didn't know it existed since it is geoblocked in europe and I had to use a vpn to see it), while it is well supported by sources such as the following: https://foxmandal.in/rooh-afza-has-immense-goodwill-delhi-hc-rules-in-trademark-infringement-case/ https://csipr.nliu.ac.in/trademark/rooh-afza-v-dil-afza-a-classic-case-of-deceptive-similarity/ https://www.thehindu.com/specials/text-and-context/explained-what-is-the-delhi-hc-verdict-on-rooh-afza-trademark/article66308463.ece that the name is a trademarked brand.
My question really is pretty simple. Why has content about a lawsuit against the company that operates this brand been removed? And why am I being accused of edit warring and harassment for applying wikipedia policy to obtain consensus before a change is made to longstanding content? Chattenoir (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not logical to call it a "brand" on lead. See how reliable sources describe it:
  • Rooh Afza is a very pretty bright magenta and has a distinct, rose-like flavour that is inexplicable until you taste it.[1]
  • Rooh Afza is a sweet concentrated rose syrup and is a staple in Desi and Arab households, particularly during Ramadan.[2]
  • Rooh Afza is a unique combination of 16 cooling herbs and pure fruit juices.[3]
  • ROOH AFZA is a superb blend of nourishing fruits, noble herbs, beneficial vegetables and flowers.[4]
Capitals00 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
All of these describe the same drink manufactured by Hamdard. — Longewal (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

There appears to be no outright, clear consensus. There is a majority of !voters who want to keep the material (7:5), and in my opinion, the case for keeping the material is backed up by better argument. But I would say that, as I am involved, and that is already my opinion. So, because I am involved (and only because I am involved), I am not closing the discussion in favour of “Keep”.

But because a mindless “No consensus” outcome would leave the entire section as it was when last stable, and that would make the least number of people happy, I am instead paring down the content as an open-ended compromise and a sort of bartender’s close. This does not have to be a full-stop closure, and discussion may reignite, but at least for the moment I expect edit warring to stop. — HTGS (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done in this diff. Minor edits or rewriting is acceptable, but wholesale removal will be an invitation to controversy. I recommend anyone who wants this settled differently request a closure. — HTGS (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is about edit-warring around removal of this section in the article regarding a lawsuit against the producer of this drink, it was removed without consensus. The question is whether it should have been removed.

Would be good to get other editors to look at this. Chattenoir (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • The concerning content concerns Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Bangladesh. This page is about the drink, not about the activities of that company. It does not belong here. Orientls (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The lawsuit was directly related to the drink, was it not? Chattenoir (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has edited this article for years, I would also say the concerning paragraph should not be added here. Agletarang (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but why? Chattenoir (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be good to get other editors to look at this - look at what, exactly? What is your brief and neutral statement for the RfC listings? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a section in the article regarding a lawsuit against the producer of this drink, it was removed without consensus. The question is whether it should have been removed. I think that it is relevant to the drink and therefore the article. Chattenoir (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The justification for removing this text is logically flawed. The lawsuit explicitly concerns the marketing and ingredient claims of the drink itself ('made with 35 fruit juice'). It belongs on the product page.
    Established pages like Coca-Cola index product-specific controversies on the product page, not strictly the corporate page. The controversies on Coke's page include issues across several different Coca-cola entities across the world.
    PS: To those unfamiliar with the drink, please don't be misled by the IP trying to claim this page about some generic drink. Rooh Afza is a trademarked drink manufactured by Hamdard by its entities in India, Pakistan and Bangaldesh, completely invalidating the claim that it is a generic soft drink. Outside of Hamdard's formulation, no other drink can claim to be "Rooh Afza"
    PPS: Blanking well-sourced, relevant content violates WP:PRESERVE. The standard protocol for incomplete information is to add the missing data, not delete the section entirely. The text stays. If anyone has further reputable sources on the ultimate legal outcome of the fine, please add them to the section.
    PPPS: If it's a nostalgia thing for some fanboys, I ask them to be neutral and don't fall for emotions to somehow keep your fav drink's page clean. — Longewal (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but pare it down. The crux, as I understand it from reading the paragraph in question, is that the drink was found to use fewer fruits than advertised. That is enough detail; no need to write up a report of the whole scenario with specific dates and named judges and inspectors. If more detail can be added to how many ingredients it does contain, then that should be added, otherwise a sentence should do it. Example:

    In 2018, the Pure food court[?] of Bangladesh fined the company's Bangladeshi arm four lakhs taka (USD3200 [or whatever it was]) for publishing misleading advertisements, specifically around the claim that the drink contains 35 different fruit juices.

    It also likely doesn't need its own subsection either. — HTGS (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair take. I can go with this approach. — Longewal (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and move trimmed version to Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Bangladesh where it is actually relevant. Not here. Capitals00 (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, good point. What's your take on my keep it short point? Yuh seeing same way I seeing it that there is an outcome in this lawsuit and if there was none, it would be a remove? You seeing any WP:UNDUE rules applying? NicoR8 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually disagree on both counts: it belongs here, as Longewal said, it “explicitly concerns the marketing and ingredient claims of the drink itself”, and the fact of its ingredients are of primary concern to readers of this article; and it does not belong on the company page, as it would be too ‘in the weeds’ there. Rather than being about the company in a general encyclopedic sense, it would draw focus to what appears to be a very minor case about a specific product, and does not appear to be a strong remark about the conduct of the company or anything primary for that topic. If the section/paragraph/sentence were included there, I would recommend it be moved to this article for being too trivial to that topic. — HTGS (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or remove entirely, but eliminate the WP:UNDUE niche, inflammatory header. If you wanted to cut through this cleanly, the most defensible middle-ground argument is:
Inclusion is justified IF 1. The lawsuit directly concerns product claims (ingredients, labeling, composition), AND 2. it is well-sourced and summarized neutrally. BUT: It should be brief (1 sentence) WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not a full narrative. And optionally, a more detailed version can live in the Bangladesh company article as HTGS suggested.
My recommendation is to create a section header labeled "Marketing and Public Relations" rather than the niche, inflammatory header listed previously. Then include the sentence among other notable, neutral marketing efforts for the brand, "In 2018, Hamdard Laboratories Bangladesh was fined/sued for a marketing campaign suggesting the drink has 35 fruit juices, when it in fact has x." Or similar. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I said the opposite. Did you use AI to compose this comment? — HTGS (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that correction. No, I just ran afoul of skimming too quickly. Correcting now. Pistongrinder (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My recommendation is to keep, but keep it short and not overcook it. I would have leaned towards a strong oppose if this was just a newspaper talking about a lawsuit and leaving it hanging, without an outcome. Care must be taken to follow rules at WP:BLP and ensure rules not be violated when using names of living people. NicoR8 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inclusion on this article about the drink, though it can certainly be included in the article about the company itself. desmay (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's obviously about the juice so belongs in this article. I haven't seen any clear reason for why it should be removed, other than "it's not relevant" but how on earth is a lawsuit about the content of the juice not relevant to an article about the juice? Lijil (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not relevant because it is about a particular company, not the drink itself. Agletarang (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the basic info but minimize the detail per @HTGS and @Pistongrinder. A separate section called 'lawsuit and fines' runs into the idea of a 'controversies' section, breaking WP:Criticism. Also we run the risk of placing undue weight on the story. It is notable enough for a sentence or two in the article.
~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 03:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rooh_Afza&oldid=1356969265"