Talk:Papermaking

message: This article should be named papermaking history. I has very little information about the papermaking process today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.64.134.244 (talk • contribs) 11:02, January 19, 2007   (UTC)
:I agree with the comment above. Also, while it may be a detail too much for the current entry, people interested in papermaking history might also enjoy the information about the development of wove paper in Europe at www.wovepaper.co.uk. 86.3.139.108 18:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no information on the ancient Chinese process of papermaking as invented (or improved) by Cai Lun, and how this led to paper as it is today. 75.44.225.69 01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wholeheartedly agree with the above comments. This is about the history of paper making. I got to this article from the one on paper, expecting a description of how paper is made. Instead of finding an article about how one of lagest volume commodities is produced, I found an article about history and how paper can be made by hand. I would suggest renaming this article "Papermaking (historical)" and start a new one, incorporating some of the material from paper, on how paper is made on modern machines and call that one "Papermaking (industrial)". Silverchemist 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have started to add text to correct the obvious deficiencies in this article relating to modern papermaking. The History section of the article contains, IMHO, some completely irrelevant information. What does scratching messages on leaves have to do with papermaking? It needs to be pared down, with the extra information being put into another article, perhaps one dedicated to the history of papermaking. Silverchemist (talk) 05:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It is my humble opinion that a separate entry will be eventually needed specifically to address, with an encyclopedic point of view, the industrial papermaking process and its concerns, and as another separate entry perhaps, the artistic/artisanal contemporary papermaking processes and their issues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: The history section is quite similar to the one at paper. Before posting the same stuff twice, I suggest a better coordination between the two articles. Regards Gun Powder Ma 13:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The one at paper is rather better, as is their section on papermaking itself. Johnbod 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am considering a redirect to history of paper. Not only the role of Cai Lun is a legend that has to be cleaned out everywhere, there being evidence that paper is much older, but the section is repetitive and hard to maintain. Maybe the main point would be about the history of papermaking, as distinct from the history of paper? does that make sense? YamaPlos talk 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History merger 

message: This article reads like its audience is in the fifth grade. Particularly distracting is the paragraph, "Try folding a paper in half by turning the top half down . . . you will see the numbers as described above." The desciption of paper-folding (not a very complex subject) was more than adequately explained through description. Addressing the audience in this way is both redundant and mildly insulting. The rest of the article, though better, is still a bit simplistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.227.154 (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole section is about bibliographic format, and has nothing to do with papermaking.  It should be moved to an article about bibliography and printing.  - 9 December 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.48.115 (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The English in this English-language examination of papermaking certainly needs improving, although it is perfectly understandable. The above comments seem to me to be out of place in a discussion of "Style", however, and would be better located under "Content". Malcolm535 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: I'm a professional librarian and none of the 3 references in the article looked right, so I verified them, using the Princeton and New York Public Library catalogs.  
# Herring (the 1863 book) The copy used for the ref. in the article was the 3rd edition at New York Public, as seen on Google books. The book was written by Herring, but the material transcribed comes from an introduction by "The Late Rev. George Croly." The 1st ed. of the book was published in 1855., and the introduction was written for the  first ed. George Croly is a 19th century clergyman who published on an immense variety of topics. He is most unlikely to  have had professional academic training in bibliography. The book itself is of historical importance because of actual paper sample included as an appendix in some copies.  the actual work is primarily a collection of quotations from the bible and the Greek classics--but the actual work does not seem to have been used here, just the introduction. 
# The Construction of the Codex turns out to be an unpublished web essay by Thomas M Tobin, a former Professor of Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh. . The content looks like the work of an exceptionally skilled amateur, miles above the previous reference. 
#The Diringer book is a standard elementary book, dating from 1953. the 1982 date is an unaltered Dover reprint.
(I corrected the refs. in the article as I went along; I think they are now right.) 
Some comments about possible personal bias. I have edited other related articles together with Johnbod, most notable the one on Johannes Gutenberg. Sometimes the discussion there has gone very fast, but never to the level of incivility displayed above, and he has been one of the relatively moderating influences. Any problems he has had there and on related articles is due to the attempt to compromise between contradictory extreme positions.    I have never before worked with Moerou Toukon. I have never before worked with Philip Rosenthal, though it seems Toukon has. I can understand Johnbod's extreme annoyance at an entirely proper reversion of vandalism being carelessly thought of as the deliberate introduction of vulgarisms. Articles dealing in any way with books are peculiarly subject to schoolboy vandals. 
As for the questions of the RfC.
# http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-08/08/content_4937457.htm is "Sponsored by the Xinhua News Agency, the state and worldwide news agency in China," (from its home page. It is comparable in authority to any national newspaper or press service. One might possibly wonder at national chauvinism, but In this case the work has also been reported at The World Archeological Congress in summary , and I would cite that as well; it wholly confirms the reliability of the press report. The work has also been discussed on several library-related specialist lists. 
# The "1863" (actually 1855) book is useless for encyclopedic purposes. 
# In discussing the transmission of inventions, many things are unsure. In the absence of positive knowledge, many things must be described using what in some contexts might be considered  "weasel words" .  Some think the likelihood of the Chinese influence on Western book printing as 95%, and some as 5%.   (The easiest way to deal with this particular question is to stick to paper-making, and leave the use of paper in book-making and other forms of printed to other articles--some of what is at controversy is not really needed in this article one way or another.) 
# As for the comparability of the two versions, I think that a better version than either can be constructed--as is generally the case. I think it fortunate that the rfc was asked for relatively early in the dispute, so co-operation may realistically be expected.      
(I had earlier written the comment below, before I saw the full RfC. My apologies for duplication.) DGG 07:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Goodman [[User:DGG]]

message: 1) I note firstly that User:Phillip Rosenthal was invited to comment on the page by Moerou toukon  and that his comments are entirely supportive of Moerou toukon and do not even address points made by myself and Meatwagon.
2) He has also made, and repeated elsewhere, an inaccurate slur on myself which he has refused to strike-through or revert.
3) He was himself the last person to remove material on Chinese papermaking, and is therefore himself partly responsible for the current state of the article, from which ALL references to Chinese papermaking have been systematically removed (there is a reference to Chinese printing, but none to Chinese papermaking).
4) His advice "To Moerou Toukon: Provide better sources, the ones that you bring are good enough.." is clearly disingenuous. MT has neither added any references, or any material, to this article. His only contributions have been subtractive. 
5) PR's role in this dispute is therefore clearly as a participant rather than any sort of mediator or unbiased commentator, as he purports to be.   
6) I endorse the comments of DGG, except that he does not notice that the second reference to Herring/Crole includes a quotation from a passage that actually refers to early Western woodcut and block-printing, but is here quoted out of context to refer to Chinese printing (and say that it wasn't really printing at all).  He must also have better references for the Chinese invention, which it would be very useful if he could add here.
7) The article as it now stands is a clearly POV effort which has been edited to remove all references to Chinese paper-making at any date.  The references to printing, not itself the subject of the article, have been distorted to make the rather absurd claim that Chinese woodblock printing was not printing.
Johnbod 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A small part of your "exact quotes", as can be seen above. Johnbod 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here:  Obviously there are no diffs for your refusal to strikethrough and self-revert.  Johnbod 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there are no diffs for your refusal to strikethrough and self-revert contradicts your accusation of he has refused to strike-through or revert. Phillip Rosenthal 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ???You have been asked three times to do it, and have not, though making many other posts to this page. That constitutes a refusal to do it.  Johnbod 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Implies that my cut-and-paste of his comments is not an exact quote, which it is. Johnbod 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is this last section in the "reply to Johnbod"? What is this to do with anything I said. I note you have no comments on my comments 3,5,6,7.  Johnbod 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A rather ludicrous assertion on your part, Rosenthal/Toukon.  It is already crystal clear to everyone here where your own POV lies, and I noticed you haven't responded to my criticism of your biases views in any substantive fashion.  You will notice my edits extend to several Wiki pages of my personal interest, and thus accusing me of setting up an account specifically for edit warring on Papermaking is both unsubstantiated drivel as well as not at all borne out by my edit history.  As I said I started out with a _few_ topics of my own interest and have gravitated toward this and a couple other pages especially after I noticed people like you systematically removing any substantial references to early Chinese papermaking, actions which by both their extent as well as persistence makes it clear to me that you are much less than an unbiased objective editor.  Thanks to the efforts of BBG's (and Johnbod's) rationality and evidential support you are effectively silenced on this issue, and any future reversions on your part will likely subject you to review for a permanent ban.  I have been on this earth long enough to perceive malevolence past the veneer of civility, and I see it clearly on this page.  I will be watching this page vigilantly from now on.  Cheers. Meatwaggon 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Johnbod

message: Johnbod's assertion
My exact quotes to Toukon
::A small part of your "exact quotes", as can be seen above. Johnbod 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here:  Obviously there are no diffs for your refusal to strikethrough and self-revert.  Johnbod 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously there are no diffs for your refusal to strikethrough and self-revert contradicts your accusation of he has refused to strike-through or revert. Phillip Rosenthal 17:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ???You have been asked three times to do it, and have not, though making many other posts to this page. That constitutes a refusal to do it.  Johnbod 18:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Implies that my cut-and-paste of his comments is not an exact quote, which it is. Johnbod 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is this last section in the "reply to Johnbod"? What is this to do with anything I said. I note you have no comments on my comments 3,5,6,7.  Johnbod 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A rather ludicrous assertion on your part, Rosenthal/Toukon.  It is already crystal clear to everyone here where your own POV lies, and I noticed you haven't responded to my criticism of your biases views in any substantive fashion.  You will notice my edits extend to several Wiki pages of my personal interest, and thus accusing me of setting up an account specifically for edit warring on Papermaking is both unsubstantiated drivel as well as not at all borne out by my edit history.  As I said I started out with a _few_ topics of my own interest and have gravitated toward this and a couple other pages especially after I noticed people like you systematically removing any substantial references to early Chinese papermaking, actions which by both their extent as well as persistence makes it clear to me that you are much less than an unbiased objective editor.  Thanks to the efforts of BBG's (and Johnbod's) rationality and evidential support you are effectively silenced on this issue, and any future reversions on your part will likely subject you to review for a permanent ban.  I have been on this earth long enough to perceive malevolence past the veneer of civility, and I see it clearly on this page.  I will be watching this page vigilantly from now on.  Cheers. Meatwaggon 07:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Johnbod

message: the word "printing" as used in this context is ambiguous, as it does not distinguish between the printing illustrations or blocks of text--which has been carried out on a great many materials using a great many techniques, and movable type printing from metal type on mechanical presses. It is only the latter "book-printing" technique, as first practiced by Gutenberg, which was essentially always done on paper (though there was no technical impediment for using Parchment, except the cost.) Perhaps a modern reference would be clearer in this respect. Much of the key documentation for early book printing was not yet available by 1867 (by the way, the url needs to be added if the electronic version was used). DGG 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory section on printing

message: Johnbod 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese reference

message: I am delisting this from the GA nominees page after reviewing, for the following reasons:
* The lead is too short. See WP:LEAD.
* This article is not properly sourced. The history section is on its way to being well sourced, but still needs more work. The other sections are very poorly sourced; there is a citation tag remaining as well.
* The "Method" section appears to quote a large portion of text, the source of which is not given.
* The "Paper sizes" section is not well written. Its use of the second person, POV terms like "inadequate" and "more appropriate" (it sounds like we're getting a moral lesson on how to deal with uncut books), and one-sentence paragraphs need rewriting.
* There is an ongoing edit war (see above on this Talk page). Once this has been sufficiently resolved, the article may be renominated.
Some other suggestions:
* The history and method sections could be greatly expanded. There is a rich wealth of information about books and papermaking out there, and this could be vastly improved by more detailed descriptions of the history and processes of papermaking worldwide.
* The "blank sheet of paper" image would be much more helpful if it were replaced with an image showing the relative sizes of quarto, octavo, duodecimo, etc. books, or perhaps how an octavo or duodecimo book is folded to form a gathering.
* Some of the "see also" links should be placed within the body of the text, either as "Main Article" or "See also" links.
Chubbles 00:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, Chubbles, I agree. I respectfully submit that "paper sizes" is of such secondary importance to papermaking history or method (that indeed need work), that a one liner that sends to a separate entry away from this one would be better. YamaPlos talk 18:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Failing GA

message: Earlier today I added more info about China, but have not specified that until now. Just for anyone who is wondering.--PericlesofAthens 21:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions

message: Checkuser has identified both Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal as likely sockpuppets of the same editor, Freedom skies, an Indian nationalist with a history of POV-pushing, suspect citations, edit-warring, personal attacks and, now, sockpuppetry. JFD 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal have both been permanently blocked as sockpuppets. JFD 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal 

message: This article is poorly organized in the historical section. LionheartX, please do away with these sub-sections, they are confusing and they do not make sense with the information in either. In fact, information that is stated in the Old World section is simply repeated in the New World section. If you do not reorganize it soon, I will take the liberty, as it is too painful on the brain to read this page the way it is organized now. Thanks.--PericlesofAthens 08:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old World and New World sub-sections?

message: We don't do strike through on article pages.  Moved here with comments. RJFJR (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: at best, this belongs in paper sizes. Actually, this whole block of paper sizes needs to go there, IMHO YamaPlos talk 22:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  vatmen paper 

message: The Calender article makes reference to machines that can make paper in continuous strips of unlimited length.  I came to this article to find out how they work, but this article doesn't really address anything after the 19th century.  216.75.170.81 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern papermaking 

message: Someone snuck this in:
"In the beginning of Western papermaking dogs were quite smart on the decision, dogs, cats and owls, frogs too, hi, paper size was fairly standard. A page of paper is referred to as a leaf. When a leaf was printed on without being folded, the size was referred to as folio (meaning leaf). It was roughly equal to the size of a small newspaper sheet. ("Folio" can also refer to other sizes - see paper sizes.)"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.64.210 (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Folio" section needs editing. 

message: Hi, there are some pictures on Commons related to the practice of making such paper. Do you have any ideas where they could be placed, since I can't find a related article? Thank you. --Elitre (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Elitre, paper can be made including pretty much anything. Really. OTOH, elephant dung paper, or seaweed paper, and oh so many others are just done as novelties, and have pretty much no use besides their appeal as to "weirdness". YamaPlos talk 17:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually had a printer ask me about elephant dung paper two days ago. That meme has stuck :-) YamaPlos talk 22:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Elephant dung paper

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: "Standardisation ISO sizes" includes this sentence: "For example, traditional 8.5"x11" Letter paper is within a few millimetres of A4 paper (ISO 216) dimensions."  However, A4 is 17mm (0.7") longer than 8.5"x11" paper; a very noticeable difference.  I'd suggest removing this sentence. WikiAlto (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: while I do agree in principle, the fact is that A4 and "Letter" are in practice used somewhat interchangeably when describing the most common final-consumer paper size. I would go for redoing the sentence somehow. OTOH, for formal documents to be submitted in Europe, I have found in occasions the requirement to be rather adamant that A4 be used and NOT Letter... YamaPlos talk 17:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.7 inches is more than "a few millimeters" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Papermaking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tappi.org/paperu/art_class/makingPaper.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ideas for the paper sizes block. 
# would it be better to use the word "dimensions", because "size" has another meaning, especially regarding paper?
# need to find the source for the quote indicating that presuming that folio sizes were standard is nonsensical, and while this bad practice has been carried over generations, that does not make it any better (personally I agree, but need to find the reference before insisting on this)
# "Paper historian Neil Harris suggests that Chancery, or a similarly sized sheet, accounted for 90% of the paper produced after 1500 in Europe." dixit T.Barrett. "Our Chancery ... is approximately 12.25 by 17.5 inches" https://book.grad.uiowa.edu/store/handmade-paper/chancery
# "In the beginning of Western papermaking, paper size was fairly standard" is not logical - an emerging technology would hardly begin with anything standard. Note that Barrett's assertion corresponds to post 1500, i.e., some 250+ years after Western paper manufacturing got started.
# N.Harris himself has done pretty good studies on paper dimensions statistics, precisely remarking the many differences to be found.
# D.Hunter dedicates pp.136-138 of the Dover "Papermaking" to "the best known paper sizes", indicating that"more than 240 different sizes are manufactured at the present time"  YamaPlos talk 17:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am changing my mind on this. "Paper sizes" has to go, there is already a separate article on the subject, a redirect with a short blurb would do plenty. Pretty much anything we would put here would be either redundant to or diminish from paper sizes, where this aspect clearly belongs. BTW, some mention about industrial paper sizes, and other historical measures, like the ream and what was it for 25 sheets?. Opinions? YamaPlos talk 20:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: there being no other opinions, I am deleting the paper sizes section, leaving the redirect to the article paper sizes YamaPlos talk 22:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper dimensions 

message: Post papyrus days, paper was made using pulp poured onto screens.  Modern papermaking screens are made from fine metal wire, but that's a pretty sophisticated material.  What were screens made from before that was available? 74.127.200.72 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now guessing that woven cloth fabric was used, as weaving may have been around since 10,000 BC. 74.127.200.72 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screens