Talk:Paper mill

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paper mill article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Speeds

How does a mill "operate at speeds of over 100 mph"? It spits out paper at this speed? Kfor 19:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was assuming. I work summers in a mill to put myself through college, and all the machinery here seems to be measured in feet per second (the speed of the paper passing through the machine).--Daveswagon 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

Could some one please add a historical section to this article. As it stands, there is one sentence on history, and the article would lead one to believe that paper was made from wood pulp at Baghdad in the 9th century. In fact the use of wood pulp is quite a modern innovation. Previously, the raw material used in England was rags (probably woollen rags), which the mill reduced to pulp. I think this applies to the period 1600-1850, but I am not an expert in this subject. Peterkingiron 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History (again)

"One of the first known paper mills in Europe was in Xativa (now Jativa) near Valencia, Spain"

I live 40 km far from Xàtiva. What is that about "now Jativa"? The official name of the city is Xàtiva. "Játiva", with j, is the name Castilians give to Xàtiva. But now, as almost always (excepting a period after it was burned out by the Castilian king, who renamed it to "San Felipe" as an humiliation), its name is Xàtiva. I don't know the motivations the one who wrote the sentence above had, but it is in no doubt false.
You can check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xativa
http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xativa (Catalan Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.3.122 (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mills

Is a list of paper mills really necessary... there's thousands of them in the world isn't there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.146.213 (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for real experts on medieval papermaking

To stress the point again: Historical investigations into the origin of the paper mill, that is a water-powered mill as opposed to the manual pounding of the pulp with hand pestles, are complicated by the propensity of modern authors to refer indiscriminately to any ancient paper manufacturing centre as a "mill".

Therefore, let only the real experts on the topic speak. People who do the primary research. Not secondary or tertiary authors who cite outdated views while the specialist scholarship has already long moved on. What I am saying is, the complexity of the topic is such that simply quoting views of authors who refer in passing to "paper mills" is not enough.

I have no edited the historical section so that only authors of the first category are included, but recycler or mere quoters are removed. Pertinent experts are:

Thomas F. Glick
Robert I. Burns
Donald Routledge Hill
Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom has largely been superseded, he offers little in the way of a discussion of the evidence, but simply asserts the existence of "paper mills". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim to be an expert, but I would support the view that the most reliable source will normally be recent academic writing specifically on the subject, not earlier allusions in tertiary (or more derivative works), probably copying from older academic works, superseded by modern research. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is at large also my view. However, I found Burns superseding even later scholarship, as he really probed the individual claims, much more than all other experts I consulted. Bloom, for one, might be a nice guy, but he is uncritical in his terminology, mostly simply asserting the existence of paper mills; he does not offer a discussion of the primary sources, and repeatedly does not even cite a reference at all. I do think that we have to give scholars like Burns preeminence over others who just repeat more or less uncritically outdated views. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity of the term

There is one point we have overlooked so far: a paper mill can not only be a water-powered, but also an animal-powered mill! So, in those cases where the cited authors do not offer further specifications as to their terminology, such as J. Bloom, we are at a loss with regard to the exact meaning of "paper mill". In my view, the consequence is clearly that all these authors where the meaning is unclear should be removed from the article, since we have no way of knowing whether they refer to an animal-driven, water-powered or no mill at all. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to animal-powered mills, there are also human-powered mills, usually powered by foot-pedals. Like Bloomjo suggested, there is no reason to assume a paper mill needs to be water-powered rather than human-powered or animal-powered, given the number of authors who do not define paper mills exclusively in terms of water power. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess, we need to make that clear to the reader somehow. But the problem remains that only few authors ever specify what they mean with a "paper mill" which suggests that they are not even aware of the ambiguity of their terminology. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company Oval Strapping

www.ovalintl.com http://orf.at/#/stories/2085047/ could give an article. --Helium4 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riverside Paper Mill Berlin, N.H..jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Riverside Paper Mill Berlin, N.H..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 13 February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Riverside Paper Mill Berlin, N.H..jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Market pulp link to section in Pulp (paper) page

So, first time trying to do something good here ('cept for donating!).. The "Market Pulp" page is not created, but it is described in Pulp_(paper) page under #Market_pulp. I don't want to mess up the page, so anyone with a little knowledge could link "Market pulp" mention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_(paper)#Market_pulp and it'd be swell. Thanks bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.89.97.1 (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redraft for

CURRENT VERSION -

Historical investigations into the origin of the paper mill are complicated by differing definitions and loose terminology from modern authors: Many modern scholars use the term to refer indiscriminately to all kinds of mills, whether powered by humans, by animals or by water. Their propensity to refer to any ancient paper manufacturing centre as a "mill", without further specifying its exact power drive, has increased the difficulty of identifying the particularly efficient and historically important water-powered type.[1]

Hum

PROPOSED REDRAFT - Many modern scholars fail to say what powered the mills they discuss. This makes it difficult to be sure when water-powered mills were invented.

PS Is it the modern scholars who fail to say what type of power is used? Or their sources? If it's their sources, then perhaps you need -

Historical source often fail to say ...

I am very new to Wiki so I hope this is OK. if you like it I'll leave it to you to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianthebarbarian (talk • contribs) 18:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

another redraft

CURRENT VERSION - The general absence of the use of water-power in Muslim papermaking is suggested by the habit of Muslim authors to call a production center not a "mill", but a "paper manufactory".[6]

PROPOSED REDRAFT - Muslim authors generally call a production center a "paper factory" not a "mill", suggesting that that they did not use water power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julianthebarbarian (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the use of the word "Muslim" curious. Do you mean "Arab"? Muslim covers a lot of geography - the Arab peninsula, North Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, to name a few countries. Perhaps you could clarify which Muslim authors you're referring to? DBlomgren (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics: the smell?

I'm writing about paper mills in the mid to late 19th century in Sweden. I assume they smelled as badly as the mills I passed by as a kid. Can anyone confirm the smell being a notable characteristic? If so, please add to the article. DBlomgren (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]