Talk:Papermaking

Article name

This article should be named paprmaking 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

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)

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. - 7 April 2007

RfC

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.

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 06:54, 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.

1. 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.

1. 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)

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)