Talk:Papermaking

Article name

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) MN

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) treecake88

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)

Correct! An entry on "Papermaking" can surely be expected - after perhaps a short summary of the origins and development history of the process and the product, with due ackowledgement of the role of the Chinese et al., all credit to them - to examine the modern papermaking process in detail - this is done better, at the moment, but not in sufficient detail, and with no illustrations (which are absolutely vital for a process of this complexity), in the entry on "Paper". This is, however, a discrepancy that seems to predominate throughout the net - enter "Papermaking" in Google and you'll mainly find entries on manual production of small batches of no doubt very fine and environmentally friendly paper - interesting hobby, but no use to people who need information on a very important industrial process!Malcolm535 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please see edits of 13 March 2010 by iPikulik. These were removed on the same-day because they were unwikified, but appears to be an actual factual and sourced account of modern papermaking. I'm new to this, how can we take this information and put it in so that it is acceptable? I agree with the above that the current article basically has nothing to do with papermaking. I'm not really sure it is even really a "history" of papermaking, since it doesn't really discuss how modern papemaking came to be. Anyway, any help on how to use iPikulik's data would be appreciated.J y p (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

History merger

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)

The one at paper is rather better, as is their section on papermaking itself. Johnbod 01:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Style

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)

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)

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)

RfC

POSTSCRIPT (copied from Talk:Four Great Inventions of ancient China):

Moerou toukon

Checkuser has identified Moerou toukon as a likely sockpuppet of the Indian nationalist editor Freedom skies, who has a history of POV-pushing, suspect citations, edit-warring, personal attacks and, now, sockpuppetry. JFD 06:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I did wonder, especially as he was so free with accusations himself! Johnbod 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Phillip Rosenthal too, it appears Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Freedom skies Johnbod 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Moerou Toukon

• I edited the article on 10:50, 27 March 2007 and eventually edited it from this version to this version. I plan to edit it to GA status.
• Sourced material was removed by on 17:02, 7 April 2007 by an account which seemed to have been built for this purpose.

I just started using Wiki and these are my topics of interest. I find the "work" you do here rather amusing, especially your insinuation of my bias given your own preferences for editing topics pertaining to China. Meatwaggon 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meatwaggon seems to be an account built for this purpose. Votestacking and 3RR evasion. He is pushing exactly the same content and has been acting in the same disruptive manner. Even the source and the weasel words are intact. Moerou toukon 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the same version three times. The record shows this, therefore accusing me of it is a lie. On the other hand, if I had posted the same version three times, would that not mean YOU are guilty of 3RR evasion yourself? The "weasel words" will be removed, but the essence of the quote will be reinserted and we shall let the admins decide whether you or I are biased. Speaking of disruptive manner, I inserted a quote which YOU deleted because you disagreed with its implications and its source because of your own biased POV. That would actually make you the disruptive one. Meatwaggon 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sourced content was removed by Johnbod. He also added websites which he described as "accurate referenced material" (I found it to be a pro China website).

It really doesn't matter what you "find" to be a "pro China" website, the evidence at hand is arbiter of truth, not your opinion of it. And speaking of pro this and that, I see you have an affiliation with a Japanese university; perhaps I could stupe to your level and insinuate anti China motivations on your part. Your edits are being reverted. Meatwaggon 03:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess administrative action is in order on whether http://news.xinhuanet.com/english is a pro China website or not. I will apply for such an action if the disruptive reverts continue and will eventually have a checkuser as well. To avoid conflict, as I have other projects pertaining to Japanese mythtology to deal with, I'll make it clear that China is mentioned alongside Egypt in early Papermaking and I don't see how that is detrimental to the task of China having made early advances in papermaking.

China is mentioned in good force and I feel that any personal insecurities leading up to such disruptive behavior are unnessasary at this stage, as are any administrative actions against violators. I understand that no further violations of WP:ATT, WP:Civil, WP:meatpuppet, WP:sock and WP:EW will follow. Regards, Moerou toukon 04:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What you "understand" is, again, irrelevant. Making unsubstantiated accusations against me as you have just done is certainly a WP:Civil violation on your part. I have not made any WP:ATT violations since it is _nothing_ more than your own opinion that my source is biased. While we may debate whether or not I have made a WP:Civil violation, your insinuation that my POV is biased is essentially the same thing that I said to you. Your accusation of me committing a WP:meatpuppet is utterly groundless and actually makes you guilty yet again of WP:Civil. And accusing me of WP:EW violation is certainly a case of a pot calling the kettle black, since you have dutifully reverted each of my contributions. I understand that no further violations of WP:ATT, WP:Civil, WP:meatpuppet, WP:sock or WP:EW will follow from yourself. Again, I anticipate that the admins will have to arbitrate in this scenario since you seem intent on _repeatedly_ deleting my own contribution to this page. Meatwaggon 06:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your own new edit, your problem (at least your superficial problem) seems to be that the Xinhuanews site is "pro China", a rather curious and obviously fruitless attempt at source discreditation. Xinhua is a Chinese news site, and though I don't know what exactly you are trying to insinuate by labeling this source as "pro China", I suppose that by its very nature it would concern itself with Chinese matters. If that's all you mean by "pro China" then I heartily agree. If however you mean that Xinhua would actually FABRICATE or EXAGGERATE the facts to report misleading or false news about matters of Chinese interest, that would clearly be your own (unsubstantiated) POV. Xinhua is one of the few major Chinese news networks, and for you to automatically discredit it because it is a Chinese news source only shows all the more clearly your own biased views. I will definitely reedit this back into the article, and I welcome you bringing this source (and by necessity your own actions wrt this page) to the attention of the admins. Cheers. Meatwaggon 06:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• I recieved this message which I found offensive and full of obvious frustration. He went on to say things like "To claim that the Chinese did not invent printing is just ridiculous", "Do you have a POV on this matter?" and I shall be reverting your changes, which makes the intention for a revert challenge instead of a healthy discussion crystal clear.
• In this version, you'll note that all material critical of China's early papermaking process has been omitted. In addition weasel statements such as "Chinese court official Cai Lun is widely regarded to have first described the modern method of papermaking (inspired from wasps and bees)" have been added.

Kindly decide:-

• If http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-08/08/content_4937457.htm meets WP:RS criteria.
• If Paper & Paper Making Ancient and Modern By Richard J. Herring, George Croly. Pages XIII-XIV. Published 1863. Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green. 134 pages. The New York Public Library. Digitized May 3, 2006 meets WP:RS criteria.
• If weasel words should be allowed.
• Out of these two version, which one do you find more suitable?

Regards, Moerou toukon 16:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, you have misread the history & confused who changed what. If you want to get this article to FA status, you will not do it by relying on sources from 1863 for a not-very-obscure subject, especially when they contradict all modern authorites, as referenced in the WP articles Woodblock printing, and WP printing in Japan , links to which you have removed.

Do you actually believe that : "The Chinese, produced blocks of wood engraving, with which they produced multiple copies by impression. The Chinese people had applied it to a species of bank notes as early as the tenth century. Still, this operation was expensive and also so insufficient, that the art of printing cannot be said to have been yet discovered."

- gives an acceptable account of Chinese woodblock printing? In general, this article is a long way from GA status, never mind FA. Even the section in Paper are rather better than this. I notice you have been editing WP (under this user-name anyway) for less than two weeks, and already have got involved in other tussles of this nature. I suggest you take things more calmly. Johnbod 16:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fuller account of the discovery.[1] Naturally discoveries in China are reported first by the Chinese media. I have looked at your wonderful 1863 source, which is not an academic work at all, and find that the quoted passage is in fact applied to Western woodcut and block-books pre-Gutenberg, not to Chinese printing. So the source is mis-quoted as well as inaccurate (the account it gives for Western early printing was no doubt ok for 1863, but will not do now - wrong on several points). Johnbod 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your earlier edits, I see they mainly amount to removing most of the previous lead para, which also covered the Chinese invention of paper. As the article reads now, it would appear that paper was invented by the Maya of Mesoamerica! Perhaps it would be useful if you couled give your understanding of when paper was invented in Eurasia. Johnbod 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Moereu Toukon says at RfC: "been working hard on the article and plan to stick to the neglected article till it reaches GA level." - In fact his edits to this article consist only of removing references to the Chinese invention of paper, and his edits to many other articles seem to be along the same lines. He has put List of Chinese inventions up for AfD after his edits there were reverted. Johnbod 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm a computer administrator and learning the Wikilanguage was easier for me than most people, even then I've made mistakes like this. If you see my talk page then you'll come across me trying to ask for WP:ATT sources.

Having said that I would like to also ask editors who review the content to take a look here for the user's conduct, which may warrant administrative action if it persists.

Also take a look here, here and [2] for the user's violations of WP:ATT, WP:EW and WP:Civil. The user seems intent to push his POV incessantly.

My contributions to this article, see if they're good enough and if the accusations to me are substantiated.

Kindly see List of Chinese inventions for yourselves, especially the AfD. Johnbod's disruptive conduct is apparent there as well.

Regards,

Moerou toukon 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Rosenthal

• To Meatwaggon/Johnbod: Refrain from adding material more suitable for a magazine than an encyclopedia. Every wikipedian has a right to vigilantly delete tendentious content such as this.

Hmm, interesting comment. Please clarify what you define as material more suitable for a magazine and how my own contribution is to be considered "tendentious", especially given the source of tendentiality is coming from no one other than Moerou Toukon. If he were not vigorously debating its controversiality, it would not even be given a second thought as to its prima facie reliability. A fact is not controversial just because someone wants to make it so. Even if it WERE tendentious (by that I assume you mean 'controversial'), what gives either you or Toukon the right to come down on the one side of its controversy and affirm any deletion of its mention? In fact just by affirming MT's actions in deleting this so-called "tendentious" material you have inserted your own POV into the issue. By your definition of tendentious I could go and delete any Wiki content I find disagreeable, regardless of its veracity, and thus make it a "tendentious" issue and worthy of continuous "vigilant" deletion.

Regarding its suitability for Wikipedia, links to news sites are EXTREMELY common here as sources, so I find it curious why you seem to think it should not be permitted in this case. I welcome your elaboration on this. Meatwaggon 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I find it extremely despicable that you have assumed and accused that Johndob and myself are the same person because we have similar POVs, when you have absolutely ZERO evidence that this is the case. As I have said, I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia and an even newer editor. I would be doing no worse than you if I assumed you and MT were the same person and addressed you accordingly. Meatwaggon 10:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• To Moerou Toukon: Provide better sources, the ones that you bring are good enough but they are dated. Of course, we're not dealing with nanotechnology here but history of an ancient craft and the book appears to be respectable. Still, if you can provide better sources then do. Also, editing the initial does not make for even an elevation into class-A leave alone GA class; edit the entire article before you claim attachment.

I entered article history and highlighted johnbod and came across some startling revelations. This and Johnbod stating that The word paper comes from your momma's pussy were particularly interesting.

I think a full fledged ban is in order if misconduct prevails.

I have watchlisted the article. The situation is not that complicated; better not let it escalate.
Kind regards, Phillip Rosenthal 04:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Learn how to read a history. That was by this vandal [3]. By the time i edited to revert he had done another, so I accidentally reverted to his first, before correcting. I suggest you revert your comment at once. Johnbod 05:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem with the other edit; the edit summary is clear enough. Johnbod 05:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, you did write those words. However, I will take back the claim that you intentionally made those statements as your diffs seem to indicate that you edited to the profane language by accident rather than intent. Further conflicts should be avioded and I don't appreciate the tone of Learn how to read a history.
Keep personal emotions out of editing Wikipedia and observe civility at all times.
Kind regards,
Phillip Rosenthal 06:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You should at least strike the comment through (it is now inappropriate to remove it given it is discussed by DGG below, and also self-revert this, and anything else you have done in similar vein. I suppose I should not expect an apology! Johnbod 12:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

David Goodman User:DGG

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.

1. 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.
2. 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. [4]. The content looks like the work of an exceptionally skilled amateur, miles above the previous reference.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. The "1863" (actually 1855) book is useless for encyclopedic purposes.
3. 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.)
4. 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)

Johnbod

1) I note firstly that User:Phillip Rosenthal was invited to comment on the page by Moerou toukon [5] 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)

Reply to Johnbod

Johnbod's assertion

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.

My exact quotes to Toukon

Still, if you can provide better sources then do. Also, editing the initial does not make for even an elevation into class-A leave alone GA class; edit the entire article before you claim attachment.

A small part of your "exact quotes", as can be seen above. Johnbod 17:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod's assertion

He has also made, and repeated elsewhere, an inaccurate slur on myself which he has refused to strike-through or revert.

My exact quote

Hm, you did write those words. However, I will take back the claim that you intentionally made those statements as your diffs seem to indicate that you edited to the profane language by accident rather than intent.

I will wait for Johnbod's to produce the diffs as to where I refused to strike-through or revert before acting further.

Here: [6][7][8] Obviously there are no diffs for your refusal to strikethrough and self-revert. Johnbod 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

???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)

Johnbod's assertion

His advice "To Moerou Toukon: Provide better sources, the ones that you bring are good enough.." is clearly disingenuous.

My exact quotes

Still, if you can provide better sources then do. Also, editing the initial does not make for even an elevation into class-A leave alone GA class; edit the entire article before you claim attachment.

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

Johnbod's assertion

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.

Meatwaggon

This account is made exclusively for edit warring on this article. In face of such actions sympaty for a young wikipedian is not unusual.
Especially when the other party is bent on violating all norms held scared by Wikipedians, including the core WP:ATT and WP:CIVIL policies.

Regards,
Phillip Rosenthal 17:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Summary of latest edit

• Shoddy sources will not do. I'll have to use Brittanica and Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking, Second Edition (Hardcover) by Christopher J. Biermann (Author). Page number 1. Hardcover: 754 pages. Publisher: Academic Press; 2 edition (July 22, 1996).
• I have removed the tag.

Other

• The Chinese people had applied it to a species of bank notes as early as the tenth century. Still, this operation was expensive and also so insufficient, that the art of printing cannot be said to have been yet discovered is a legitimate statement. These lines have been quoted precisely and any critisism of early process from a specific country have been labelled by the very enthusiastic Johnbod as a clearly POV effort which has been edited to remove all references to Chinese paper-making at any date. Not only is that statement incorrect but highlights the incivility and intentions of the user.
• I did not provide the source for the Construction of the Codex.

Moerou toukon 18:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese and Japanese also produced very large encyclopedias using it, and it predominated printing in both countries for centuries after moveable type printing was introduced there, as is fully referenced at Woodblock printing and Woodblock printing in Japan, links to which you have removed.

The 1855/63 quotation is misleading; quoting the previous sentences would make it clear that it is Europe that is being discussed. Furthermore the source is unacceptable, as DGG says.

Either the disputed tag is restored, or an accurate section on printing is put in place, or, which I will now try, the whole section on printing is removed, as it is only a related subject that can be covered by See also.

I am glad to see you have partly reversed your untenable attitude to the Chinese origin of paper itself. Johnbod 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that this has, I hope, been sorted out, it might be an idea to add something to the article on the actual making of paper. Johnbod 19:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Johnbod,

Your accusations and tone are surprising; especially while noting that I had to do most of the work for procuring citations for your assertion as you were incapable of bringing citations attesting to WP:ATT. For future reference, if you have claims to make then kindly procure suitable references like I've done using Brittanica. In your statement the first five points are demonstrably incorrect accusations at Phillip Rosenthal which should say a thing about your approach towards civility. That and the use of a sock/meat puppet alongside slurs like I am glad to see you have partly reversed your untenable attitude to the Chinese origin of paper itself clearly depicts your vitriolic Chinese nationalism.

Johnbod, it would take me one hour to crack that library card and find credible, undisputable citations to counter your nationalist assertion that the Chinese paper/early paper was suitable for common use and inexpensive and paper as we know it came from China and Europe's role deserves only a few mentions in a paragrah. I will refrain from doing that because I do not edit with a vengeful attitude.

In reply to Now that this has, I hope, been sorted out; Yes it has, no thanks to disruptive edit warring and producing Xinhua websites but due to the thankful existance of Brittanica which saved me the trouble of going to a library to find a ink and paper book and a few journals to deal with the subject completely.

Regards,

Moerou toukon 07:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Defiant to the last. Your attempted meatpuppet "Phillip Rosenthal" was ineffectual and your edit warring was soundly put down by the incontestable facts which Johnbod and DGG provided. Xinhua is as I said a legitimate mainstream Chinese news source (not to mention backed up by other sources), and is certainly more legitimate than other news agencies (like Asahi Shimbun, for example). By the way, you really need get a clue about WP:ATT before you open your mouth again to accuse people of disreputable sourcing. Here, let me help you: "In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities, mainstream newspapers, and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses." The facts have withstood your vengeful, persistent and illegitimate editing, your own vitriolic anti-Chinese POV laid bare and shown to be wholly untenable, and will surely serve as testimony against you in the future here at Wiki. Cheers. Meatwaggon 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Introductory section on printing

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)

Chinese reference

[9] Johnbod 14:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Failing GA

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)

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)

Additions

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)

Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal

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)

Moerou toukon and Phillip Rosenthal have both been permanently blocked as sockpuppets. JFD 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Old World and New World sub-sections?

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)

vatmen paper

We don't do strike through on article pages. Moved here with comments. RJFJR (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Vatmen Paper was a type of paper made in The Netherlands that was 17 inches wide and 44 inches long. 44 inches is chosen because that is how far the papermaker could stretch his arm.{cite} The reason for 17 inches is unknown. A single vatman can generally handle a mould and deckle which produce up to a 25" wide sheet. following was commented out, made visible here I would have to think that called vatmen as its 2 vatmen handling the mould and the seventeen inches is the width they can hold, remember the vatmen must submerge the mould in the vat usually about 2 feet below the vat's water level, holding a mould 44" wide would not allow them to form a sheet of paper end of comment

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)

Modern papermaking

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)

The "Folio" section needs editing.

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)

Elephant dung paper

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) (crossposted)

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)

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)

Possible copyright problem

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)

0.7 inches is more than "a few millimeters"

"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)

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Paper dimensions

Ideas for the paper sizes block.

1. would it be better to use the word "dimensions", because "size" has another meaning, especially regarding paper?
2. 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)
3. "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
4. "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.
5. N.Harris himself has done pretty good studies on paper dimensions statistics, precisely remarking the many differences to be found.
6. 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)

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)

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)