Talk:Toilet paper/Archive 1

Contradiction

This page now contradicts itself ... who invented it? -- Tarquin 17:38 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Good question... The opening sentence ("Toilet paper was invented by Joseph Cayetty in the United States, although some say that toilet paper was originally invented in China") could be interpreted in two ways. Does it mean that Cayetty was the first person in the United States to invent toilet paper, or that he (who happened to be in the United States) was the first person to invent toilet paper anywhere? The latter interpretation implies that those who think it was first invented in China are wrong. Can anyone clarify this?
Furthermore, this bit doesn't make sense: "In parts of Africa, the converse is true, and a left-handed handshake could be considered rude." If these Africans did it the other way round from the Indians, then it would presumably be a right-handed handshake that would be considered rude. -- Oliver P. 12:30 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

Attempted to fix the problems

The article originally had a "Toilet paper was invented in China." sentence at the end of the article. I tried to combine it with the beginning, but I didn't realize that the way I phrased it made it less clear. I've changed that. Also, you're right, it's a right-handed handshake. I've changed that as well. Thanks! Let me know if my revisions are still unclear. -- cprompt 20:34, 19 March 2003‎ (UTC)

Thank you for editing it! It's very clear now, although I'm not entirely sure about the bit on the use of the bidet. Maybe that can wait until someone writes an article on them... -- Oliver P. 14:19 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Water over toilet paper

There are a lot more locations that use water instead of toilet paper (especially Islamic regions). Perhaps increase the list, or create a separate page, for butt washing? What would be the appropriate term? --69.212.102.112 21:13, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edits to the article, I couldn't see why you deleted those bits. As to butt washing.... um we have a page at bidet you might also want to look at. How about toilet habits (not a very good suggestion, I know)? fabiform | talk 21:22, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Paperless toilets

The article says that "The first "paperless" toilet was invented in Japan in 1999." Is this year accurate? I'm sure I saw demonstrations of such toilets on U.S. TV about a decade before then. Haven't they been around longer than five years? --Arteitle 06:34, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I noticed that the bidet article links to the page at [1], which mentions the Washlet, a toilet seat with bidet and dryer dating from 1980. Where did the reference to 1999 come from? --Arteitle 06:44, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The article didn't not refer to Lotas used by South Asian and Middle Eastern peoples to remove feaces from the anus, i added it under Modern Alternatived, also in the Middle East hotels and houses have hoses attached to toilets which are used to remove feaces someone should add something about that (SM)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.32.72 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 18 September 2004‎ (UTC)

Quran being used?

In some parts of the world, the use of newspaper, or Quran pages were common. - I read that in some countries, even paper bags are not to be used because it could contain pages of the Quran. I don't think that this would be so. Can you please give some references to it? --ReallyNiceGuy 14:49, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --ReallyNiceGuy 14:59, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Evasive circumlocution

"In legally compelled custodial or public disorder situations," it says. This is a most bizarre and evasive circumlocution. What the heck is it supposed to mean, in simple English, and could it be rephrased in that simple English? Is someone afraid to say "prison"? How does the legal compulsion have any relevance? Say what you mean, and say it clearly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 8 December 2006‎ (UTC)

The above anon makes a good point. In fact I was about to point this out, and also ask that someone please put the "toilet paper rolls are..." in active voice so I can figure out what the hell you're talking about. Is he right, is this non-English paragraph trying to allude to some kind of prison event, if so, what event would that be exactly? [Meh... I'll be anonymous too when posting on this subject I think :)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.42.102 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 26 December 2006‎ (UTC)

Vandalism

The article contains vandalism at the end of the first paragraph which I am unable to remove.

"Bailey Marie Moses craps really unbelievably large ones. If you could send her an extra large 8-ply pack of Charmin that would be great. She also doesn't wash her hands so some Dial soap would be necessary too."

Thank you for your time, I appreciate it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.6.149 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 February 2007‎ (UTC)

Method of operation

Does anyone think it should be noted that Toilet Paper (or tissue) is one of the only products used by everyone around the world that doesn't have instructions on the package? ;o) --DrkBlueXG 12:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Spinning direction

The Installation section discusses different methods of installing toilet paper rolls, with the first two paragraphs being largely identical to [2]. (Don't know who copied who.) Let method A denote the installation depicted in [3], and method B the one in [4]. It is then claimed that:

• [Method A] allows the defecator easy access to grab the toilet paper and pull off the desired amount of paper, as the roll spins toward the user.
• [Method B] is a bit more difficult for the defecator to grab the toilet paper: as the roll spins, it spins away from the user.
• An advantage to this method [B] is that a household with toddlers is less likely to have toilet paper spun off the roll. This is because a toddler is most likely to spin the roll toward them.

First of all, saying that something "spins away" or "spins towards" something is confusing: spin is around an oriented axis. Trying to make sense of the claims anyway, they seem to describe what happens with the edge of the roll in relation to the hand as the roll is rotated by a vertical force on the side of the roll facing away from the wall. However, is it obvious that this is the method one uses? For example, if the paper is strong enough one could in both methods simply grab the edge and gently pull to set the roll in rotation. Whether or not one considers the wall to be in the way is a matter of personal taste, some probably use it as an aid.

Secondly we need references, and not just original research, as to why method B is more toddler safe. Note that in both method A and B a similar downward vertical motion of the hand, applied on the side away from the wall or on the edge of the roll near the wall respectively, can set the roll spinning.

Also, the article states that not using any roller at all or using a vertical one is "far less common". Does this represent a worldwide view (among the toilet paper users, that is)?

Finally, it'd be nice if someone could upload photographs or illustrations similar to the ones linked above, making it easier for people not used to ambiguous toilet paper holders to understand the discussion in the article.

--Woseph 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well-downed goose as a toilet paper alternative is totaly off-topic?

What does the quote about the toilet paper alternatives contribute to the history of toilet paper? The "well-downed goose" quote seems totally off toppic and no the right tone for an encyclopedia. At most both paragraphs could be replaced with one line like: "Toilet paper was mentioned in European literature in the 16th century. [site Gargantua and Pantagruel]" --Mk2337 04:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hard paper

Did anyone ever *like* hard bogroll? Apart, that is, from the accountants and managers of institutions like schools hospitals and prisons where saving pennies was more important than user satisfaction. Has anyone successfully got themselves properly clean with that stuff? --Publunch 23:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I failed to understand the point here. They are saying that using a well-downed goose neck is a good medium to wipe your ass? Based on whose research? —WYNTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by WynterScorpion (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 December 2009‎ (UTC)

Toilet paper security? Fold v scrunch?

Come on, humor aside, this is an encyclopedia. Do these sections really have any educational value in a serious publication? No, IMHO. —CPAScott 15:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not neccessary for the same reason there are no instructions on the back of the bag of TP. You know how to do it and you do it your own way. —WYNTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by WynterScorpion (talk • contribs) 16:12, 5 December 2009‎ (UTC)

Nara period "toilet paper"

"Wooden toilet paper from the Nara period (710 to 784) in Japan. The modern rolls in the background are for size comparison" says the caption under the picture. C'mon those are pieces of wood. How can you call that "toilet paper" when it's obviously not paper? Jimp 19Dec05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.148.98.3 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 December 2005‎ (UTC)

I agree with this.. what's the deal? -- Sy / ^(talk) 18:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoever edited this article is very irresponsible

I'm sorry to take the silly issue of toilet paper so seriously and all, but really folks, you really need to know what a fact is and how to properly do research. Paper was not invented in China during the 14th century...it was used in China since the damn 6th century! That's a difference of a whopping 800 years. Really now, where do you people get your information? I hope not from the PRC (although, knowing them, they would argue that toilet paper was used since the 6th century BC!) Lol... --PericlesofAthens 11:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Added lock template

So people took no notice when I said they should add references and citations if they wanted to revert to the quite frankly disgusting "wiping technique" section... I think it was entirely proper to stop pointless edits that add nothing to the article by unregistered users.Fennessy 03:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiping technique

Why is there a section on wiping technique? It's not that I'm a prude or anything, but discussing ways to wipe your anus doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I doubt that anyone out there will come to this article to get tips about which way is best.--Jcvamp 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It has some use but I agree that the way it's presented doesn't seem very encyclopediac, but more like a health column online.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.213.24 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 June 2007‎ (UTC)

I think this section is completely unnecessary, I just edited it because what was up there already was grossly inappropriate. The kind of thing you read and think to yourself "Oh, now I understand why people think wikipedia is a bad idea...". If somebody wants to put it back up they should definately rephrase the whole thing and cite sources from health professionals.Fennessy 11:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is excellent, but backwards. How would cleaning from the back flick poo on the back of the toilet? I think somebody got confused. Billywhack 10:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

its totally importatnt for the ladies,they dont wanna wipe the poo into the vaginas, it could make them have sickness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 January 2008‎ (UTC)

57 sheets!

Can somebody cite the 57 sheets a day stat? I mean, more specifically than just Charmin'. That seems like a preposterously large amount. Even half that seems like a lot. Tuf-Kat 01:09, December 23, 2004 (UTC)

Well, you speak for yourself..... --pippo2001 01:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the average number of sheets used per person in different countries? --Banime (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

we got any proof Johnny Carson caused a shortage of the tiolet paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been addressed before

Can the first sentence be worked on and improved to tell the reader what TP is? I did the basic rewrite but forgot about the ladies and its use for urine removal. Sorry. --72.209.8.205 (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better if I do say so myself :) --72.209.8.205 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stranded song

See YouTube kids. See Red Hot Chili Peppers. See a few hundred Google pages. I'm reverting the editor who removed this cultural reference from the article. If I didn't properly cite it, someone who knows how to do that should do so. But deletion is not an option, full stop. --Go Green Go White (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, and you don't get to make ultimatums to other editors. Lyrics are copyrighted, and do not belong in articles, especially when tangentially related. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't get to make ultimatums, but apparently you do? Do me a favor -- let me know who holds the copyright on the lyrics to Stranded. Can you do that for me, SWAT? --Go Green Go White (talk) 02:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is copyrighted is unimportant. A WP article is no place for song lyrics. The removal was justified. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced and unencyclopedic. The addition of the lyrics to the article was not accompanied by any sourced copy that discussed why this song is even notable or how it is a "cultural reference" in any way. --Quartet 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheet size by country

someone removed this section at some point today, and i haven't seen any kind of explanation as to why. imo, it was a useful and interesting addition, and I was actually referred to it from a comment on reddit, so clearly it is relevant and of interest. Suggest it be restored? 86.8.138.180 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seemed like the most useless piece of trivia I could think of, so I took it out (I've decided to be bold lately). I still can't think of a situation where that information would be useful. Maybe if you are moving to a new country and you want to see if the TP there is properly suited to your bum? As it was, the section just listed three countries and some measurements. Just because it is information and it is sourced does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Man It's So Loud In Here 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, taking it out again --Banime (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides sheet size, the number of sheets per roll varies. In the past year, many USA companies have tried to keep the prices the same or slightly higher, but compensated by reducing the amount of paper. For advertising and perception purposes, companies such as Proctor & Gamble (Charmin) and the Wal-Mart "Members Mark" have been either reducing the sheet size from 4.5 x 4.2 inch to that of 4.5 x 4.0 inch. For 2008, Georgia Pacific with their Nothern Tissue brand didn't reduce the size, but instead, reduced the number of sheets on their regular-size roll which enabled them to keep the same advertising bylines for their top-selling "double-size" rolls which are still double the size of their regular rolls, but now have 300 sheets instead of 352 sheets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeJanai (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is important and not trivia at all. I suppose one person's useless fact is another's essential information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.2.224 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2010‎ (UTC)

Has all TP always been designed to decompose in a septic tank?

It seems not, based on the second sentence below:

"It differs in composition somewhat from facial tissue, and is designed to decompose in septic tanks, which some other bathroom and facial tissues do not. Most septic tank manufacturers advise against using paper products that are non-septic tank safe."

If it has not always been true of all toilet paper, the first sentence should be modified. Assuming the tp designed to decompose is American (or "Western" to include Europe), rewording might be as simple as:

"It differs in composition somewhat from facial tissue. Modern American toilet paper is designed to decompose in septic tanks, which some other bathroom and facial tissues do not."

Rhkramer (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject China?

Seriously? Wikiproject China? and a B rating at that? Toilet paper was invented by Wheeler, or the Scott Brothers, or a third person I forget (he's mentioned in the article, look it up), but no, it was not invented in China. People in China use toilet paper, they also I hear eat potato chips and surf the web on computers and then sleep at night, that doesnt mean they invented potato chips (American), the Internet (American), computers (I have no idea, but I'm guessing American), or sleep (um...some primitive life-form millions of years ago? But, hey, they could've been living in what is now China). I'm sure there are more appropriate wikiprojects, and B is stretching the quality of this article. It's more humorous and less NPOV than my posting here. Having used or invented a primitive form of something that was independently invented in the modern era doesnt mean it should go in that country's wikiproject, otherwise we'd have to invent a Sumerian wikiproject for the wheel, potter's wheel, alphabet, hour, minute, second, circle (they are the ones who decided on the arbitrary notion of 360 degrees to a circle, 60 seconds to a minute and 60 minutes to an hour). Unless someone has a serious opposition to removing the China wikiproject heading I'm going to remove it, it is nonsense. 24.182.142.254 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That it was first used in China is sourced. I wouldn't remove the WP banner. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Over vs under, fold vs wad

Shouldn't the "Over vs Under" and "Fold vs Wad" usages of modern roll toilet paper be mentioned? LOL --Voidvector (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

The images of novelty toilet paper holders are not relevant or appropriate to this article and were removed. Declair (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations added

citations were added to the reference to Seth Wheeler. Declair (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Cornholio

I take it we don't want this link. Can somebody explain nicely to the new user why that is please? --John (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

for one, The Great Cornholio probably will not exist as a stand alone article for much longer as it does not meet our requirements of having third party coverage. WP:V / WP:N-- The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed it before seeing this thread. Be bold guys! Matt Deres (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Mu-Mu-Gramist

I notice that my information about the Mu-Mu-Gramist, a special appointed officer in certain parts of the world who trains on proper wiping technique and ensures that the technique continused to be used, keeps getting deleted. Is it too trivial because it's not an American thing? Or does it not contain enough information? If someone can tell me what's wrong with the Mu-Mu-Gramist part I'll gladly fix it up, and if I can be convinced it just doesn't belong at all, I'll stop re-adding it forever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.72.209.23 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

"Certain parts of the world" is quite vague; if you can't even say in what part of the world these Mu-Mu-Gramists ply their trade, I'd be disinclined to consider this to be fact. Bustter (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comfort Wipe

Shouldn't the first advance in toilet paper since the 1880s get some mention?

http://www.comfortwipe.com Bustter (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been using the, "Seventh Generation" toilet paper products for some time now. It is a great alternative to buying regular paper. It's comfortable, has a strict minimum of 80% post-consumer material, and you can find it at most Giant food stores, as well as at the organic/natural food stores.

"Our bathroom tissue is made from 100% recycled paper, with a minimum of 80% post-consumer content. It is whitened without chemicals that contain chlorine."

Bigbrifilm (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)bigbrifilm

Roman sponges

Does anyone find it interesting that a briny sponge-on-a-stick is not only what the Ancient Romans used to wipe their asses, but what they used to give Jesus a drink? Am I off base here? Am I near gold?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.44.107.217 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Very very interesting, I do believe you have struck gold here. You may very well be the first person in history (since the romans themselves back then) to have figured it out. JayKeaton 00:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No but, what humans used to perform this function prior to the advent of TP is a very interesting question given the level of deforestation required to produce this item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.197.122 (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Recycled paper?

There's no mention of the prevalence or use of recycled paper in the article. Can somebody please add some information on this? Stillwaterising (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

True, that is clearly missing. Unfortunately, not really my area of expertise (other than I use it every day)... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fold vs scrunch?

I've noticed that there's no mention of the various methods of using the toilet paper... Anyone want to add it? (I haven't the time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.190.180 (talk) (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 January 2006‎ (UTC)

i used to fold,now i scrunch,i think it adds to the surface area —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 19:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Folding wastes material. Scrunching makes more efficient use of material. Like foaming hand soap vs. liquid hand soap. You use less when it's all poofed-up. --72.225.47.167 (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff

this entry is really well written and has this subtle humorous aspect going on. i'd just like to say kudos to whoever wrote it. good job— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.107.197.198 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 14 June 2006‎ (UTC)

I agree, I came to the talk page just to say this is particularly well written. I really think it's important that you kept a totally serious head when detailing the information. I love how there's a whole timeline punctuated with historical events. It's both humorous and informative at the same time, with no compromises being made on the information. This is a lot more valuable than something that plays fast and loose with the facts or isn't geared toward delivering facts. To really explore all the humorous angles of a subject you need a serious understanding of the truth, and there should be a place to get it. People come to Wikipedia for facts, and if they want facts on a humorous topic they should still get quality facts. You guys beat Dave Barry and the Klutz books and men's magazines hands down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.143.16 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 20 July 2006‎ (UTC)

I don't think that encyclopedias should be full of humor. I'll work to change the tone of the article to a more neutral, non-funny one. Other editors, please help out. Seriously imagine if people wrote other articles in funny ways, it doesn't matter if you get the information it still affects the tone and neutrality of the article and could potentially offend some people (what if you wrote the columbine massacre article in a funny tone?) --Banime (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is very well written. You need to acknowledge that certain subjects are acceptable to be humorous about. Bum paper is definelty a topic that has an air of humor to it. And for you to compare it to something like the columbine massacre where lives were lost is positively rediculous. A subject surrounding the loss of children's lives clearly does not allow for humor, in any way. There is absolutely no room for comparison between the two subjects. Its like comparing puppies to al-kaida. —WYNTER —Preceding unsigned comment added by WynterScorpion (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening line

"... designed for the cleaning of the anus to remove fecal material after defecation or to remove remaining droplets of urine from the genitals after urination."
is accurate, but not particular nice to read. Can anyone think of a more pleasant way to word this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.119.111 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 18 July 2006‎ (UTC)

No, and why should they? It's shit rag. It's used precisely to remove faeces from the anus. What do you want it to say, "it's for cute doggies to play around with"? This is the thing that always bothers me about toilet paper advertising; you can make it as nice and soft and environmentally friendly as you like and you can fill the advert with dogs and bears and what have you, but at the end of the day it's for cleaning shit out of your arse. Deal with it. Kinitawowi 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not very nicely put by Kinitawowi...but he/she's right. It is what it is. —WYNTER —Preceding unsigned comment added by WynterScorpion (talk • contribs) 16:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Recycled" Chinese toilet paper

When I first read the report of contaminated Chinese toilet paper I knew I had to put it in here. While I can't find the original article or even much information on the Hong Kong Star (Daily), the secondary sources confirm the story. My guess is that paper fibers are being recovered from sewage treatment plants and being used to make "new" toilet paper, a frightening and disgusting prospect. The story was originally carried by CNN but later removed, why? Are our bargain-basement paper tissue products from China contaminated as well? Stillwaterising (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked into it more. There's at least three things that are contributing to the contaminated tissue paper supply. First, workers are employed to go through garbage and pick out paper for recycling. Two, many (perhaps most) Chinese do not flush used toilet paper down the toilet, rather they put it in the waste basket (see Other Countries above), which makes recycling paper out of the waste stream an even worse idea bacteriologically. There's an ongoing public health campaign attempting to get citizens to change their ways. Third, many lower-priced restaurants provide rolls of toilet paper to be used while dining instead of higher quality folded square sheets of tissue that Westerners call napkins (which can be contaminated as well). I found online sources for all this back in October 2009, it's likely they still exist. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh snap! I found a reliable report that the Chinese are making panda poop into paper products. Truth really is stranger than fiction! - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I had to remove the section on panda paper because the article does not mention toilet paper. I'm not sure where to put it, code is as follows:

• A 2007 release from the Associated Press claims that Giant panda feces from the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding in Sichuan province is being made into office and wrapping paper. Giant panda bears eat primarily bamboo shoots which are high in pleant fiber (cellulose). Paper is made through a "day-long process of cleaning the feces, boiling it in a soda solution, bleaching it with chlorine and drying it under the sun."

"Cleaning the feces" sounds like fun. Sign me up! - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Manufacture

I wish someone knowledgeable in this area would include a section about the manufacture of TP. What types of trees does it come from? Can/is recycled paper used? Can TP (unused) be recycled -I have been told 'no' as the fibers are the shortest of any paper type. Is there cotton content included? Hemp TP? Is steam used to fluff it up? What about waste? Is it made in long rolls and then sliced to width? What about some microscope images of the fiber web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.2.224 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is a bit... weird

Is it just me who thinks that or is there anybody else that feels that way? Craig Ponnan 00:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not just you. It should be a WP embarrassment. CyberAnth 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume (I know) that the current paragraph beginning as follows is not what you are complaining about?

"Toilet paper is a soft paper product used to maintain personal hygiene after human defecation or urination."

—Rhkramer (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject of the opening paragraph can I point out that someone has asserted that its origins go back to 1862, shortly before the section starts on medieval Chinese use of toilet paper. Even the section on modern toilet paper cites an introduction in 185? [[[User:Felesacra|Felesacra]] (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)]

China culture

I had to do a slide show and i need to know: how did toilet paper advance chinese culture? Toaster241 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brothers vs. Seth Wheeler

Re: "The Scott Brothers are often cited as being the first to sell rolled and perforated toilet paper, but unless they were doing so without a patent, the beginning of toilet paper and dispensers familiar in the 21st century is with Seth Wheeler of Albany, NY, who obtained several patents. The first of note is for the idea of perforating commercial papers (25 July 1871, #117355), the application for which includes an illustration of a perforated roll of paper."

I'm not going to suggest deleting this paragraph, because in the absence of any better information it seems appropriate. But, it also seems worthy of further research to find out if the Scott Brothers were selling perforated toilet paper before Seth Wheeler patented the idea.

Aside: It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the Scott Brothers (or anybody else) started selling some product (perforated toilet paper in this case), before someone else had the idea of patenting (the idea). (And, if so, this might be worth citing in some article on the history of patents.)

Rhkramer (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking and I can't find anything about Scott paper owning any patents on TP until the early 1900s. There are many many reference to them being the inventors of rolled TP but I have year to find any evidence that this is truelRblumer (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Toilet paper in Nazi Germany

It has been remarked by older Germans that the worst thing about Nazi Germany was the poor quality of the toilet paper

Oh yes? Was this really the worst thing about Nazi Germany?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.4.169 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Bathroom tissue

I've never heard "bathroom tissue" for toilet paper. Can someone specify by whom this term is used? Jimp 19Dec05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.148.98.3 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 19 December 2005‎ (UTC)

It's a common alternative name for toilet paper in the United States. Just do a Google search for it and you get lots of link to toilet paper products. --Cab88 08:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is used by people that can't bring themselves to say something as common as "toilet paper". Bathroom tissue has a touch of class to it. It's no different to calling the toilet a "water closet" JayKeaton 00:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The OFFICIAL name for this article should be "Bathroom Tissue." Toilet paper should be the name of this article for the "Simple English" version. Toilet paper is not the real name, bathroom tissue is. ahkilinc 22:50, 28 October 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahkilinc (talk • contribs)

Not everyone lives in the NY Metro or LA Metro regions of the United States, or even the United States, where they prefer the terms "bath tissue" or "toilet tissue" over "toilet paper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.38.120 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Claimed demise of plain unpatterned colored toilet paper

The Description section currently includes the text:

"Today it is extremely rare to ever see plain unpatterned colored toilet paper for sale as was common in the 1960s and 1970s."

This is simply not true, at least in the UK. As a shopper for toilet paper for over 20 years, my direct experience is that while white toilet paper has in the last 2 years or so become proportionally more popular than before (I suspect largely due to its marginally lower price in these straightened times), plain unpatterned coloured toilet paper (I buy peach) is still plentifully available in all the usual shops. I suspect from the spelling that the editor who wrote this may be speaking from a parochial viewpoint: unless the wording is modified to reflect a local applicability, corroborated by a reference, I am minded to delete the sentence entirely and modify its surrounding context appropriately. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.65 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Americans use toilet paper as an oil filter???

WHAT? I've never known anyone to do this, but have seen the device for sale in a very old catalog. The article claims that the fact that Americans use toilet paper to filter oil may skew sales statistics. I don't think this is true at all, as the number of people using TP as an oil filter has got to be insignificantly low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.115.87 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Toilet paper

The entry for toilet paper never mentions perforations to make tearing easier. When was that innovation added, and who invented it? Follitics (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Environmental considerations

I added the following paragraph to the article:

"A February 27, 2009 article in The Daily Mail said that more than 98% of the toilet paper used in the United States comes from virgin forests. [6] However, a contradictory February 25, 2009 New York Times article said that between 25% and 50% of the toilet paper used in the United States comes from tree farms in the U.S. and South America, with most of the rest coming from second growth forests, and only a small percentage coming from virgin forests. [7]"

I think I know the reason for the contradiction. When The Daily Mail said that more than 98% of U.S. toilet paper comes from "virgin forests," I think they were wrong. I think it's very likely that more than 98% of U.S. toilet paper comes from virgin paper, but not from virgin forests. This is a huge difference, because there is only a finite amount of virgin forest, but there is no limit to the amount of virgin paper, becaused farmed trees are a renewable resource. Therefore, I think the info from The New York Times is the info that's actually accurate. However, I am leaving both sources in the article, for balance. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to leave an obvius misunderstanding in the article that will only cause confusion. There is no balance in that. --Langbein Rise (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I am removing the Daily Mail bit, it is wrong. - Epson291 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like someone needs to learn a little about the lumber industry. Pulp is a byproduct of the lumber industry that utilizes substandard lumber and scraps. Prime lumber (what loggers are actually after) is used to make cabinets and other expensive consumer goods. Virgin pulp comes from branches and half-rotted logs that can't be utilized for these purposes. Nobody cuts down a $15,000 dollar Rosewood tree for pulp. Most of the deforestation happening in the rain forest happens because poverty-stricken people are trying to clear the land for agricultural purposes. Because they can't afford the equipment to get it to market, they just burn the wood most of the time. Toilet paper is ONLY made from pulp. No trees are deliberately cut down FOR toilet paper. It utilizes already existing pulp excess from unrelated deforestation. 124.169.198.197 (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Toilet roll invention

According to the New Shell Book of Firsts, the first toilet paper as we know it was Gayetty's Medicated Paper, produced in 1857 in 500-sheet packages at 50 cents a pack by Joseph Gayetty of New York City.

The first toilet roll (according to the same source) was produced by Seth Wheeler of New York in 1871. The first manufacture of toilet rolls in Britain was by Walter Alcock in 1879.

can anyone verify this ref I saw on the net? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seashells

I approve of this hilarious vandalism. —24.246.40.139 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Most countries put used TP in a trash can, they do not flush it

The article currently reads: toilet paper...can be flushed in most countries where toilet paper is common. Most modern sewage systems, including septic tanks, can accept toilet paper along with human excreta. In many instances, used toilet paper is placed in a tin or dustbin next to the toilet if the plumbing or septic system cannot cope with toilet paper.

The truth is that I have never been to a country outside the US where flushing TP was okay. Mexico and Central America, Spain and France, as well as South-East Asia (there TP is not widely used unlike the other countries I mentioned) are countries where you must put used TP in a trash bin set next to the toilet. Their pipes are too narrow to handle it, as I understand. The wording of the article should reflect this reality. I will change it soon unless anyone says otherwise in this discussion page.

Flushing TP is rare, most of the TP-using world puts it in a bin. Anyone disagree?
--Jon in California 6 Jan 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.9 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 January 2008‎ (UTC)

nasty,but true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 January 2008‎(UTC)

I disagree - that does not match my experience. In my travels in Europe, it is very uncommon to find a trash can next to the toilet - flushing the toilet paper is the only way to dispose of it. I just got back from a trip that included the UK, France, and Italy and there was no dustbin next to any of the toilets. Canada also follows the flush model, as do countries like Bermuda.
In South East Asia, my experience has been that it depends on the specific building. Most western hotels do not seem to have bins by the toilet, so flushing seems to be expected. As one gets off the beaten track then the bins are more common. Johntex\^talk 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Johntex thanks for your input. I haven't spent much time in Europe, just 2 weeks but in Belgium, France and The Netherlands we had to put it in a trashcan. I spent 6 months in Asia and I NEVER found a toilet with paper and no trashcan (either both or neither, wet washing only). Maybe you stay in really nice hotels, I am always in the cheepest place I can find or a locals house if possible, trying to live like a local. But you have to admit, most people in the world who wipe put it in a trashcan and do not flush. --Jon in California 20 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.9 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this thread really matter? Any place where they don't flush TP sure doesn't have computers so they will never read this anyways. Lets get real here folks and join hands and talk to the living. --72.209.8.205 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should have inacurate information on Wikipedia. --75.157.161.73 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't know where you get your information from. Been to 14 countries and have yet to visit one where they asked you to put your shitwads on public display for all to see (and smell). Strongly suspect there is some trolling going on here. Either that or some folks mistakenly think their scatological specimen collection practices are representative of the rest of the world. --72.225.47.167 (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you realise what you're arguing about?! LOSERS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.15.96 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Having travelled somewhat I would say that western Europe it is okay to flush TP, but rules are different in eastern Europe where it is patchy and it is a definite no-no in other parts of the world. However petty and unimportant this may seem to certain commentators here I think that for accuracy it should be noted that some countries have plumbing systems which accommodate flushing TP whilst others do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.253.59 (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I always flush my TP Bokiniki (talk) 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've traveled fairly widely; this claim, you should excuse the expression, is a crock of shit. MlleMFT (talk) 07:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have wiki cred, but in these countries you are usually asked to use a bin for toiler paper: Thailand (in 2010), Laos (2008, very likely to be true now as it is underdeveloped), Vietnam (2008), Cambodia (2008, underdeveloped), and Malaysia. Generally in those countries you only need to do this in smaller areas that have not updated their infrastructure or built it without considering future requirements. It is very common to see signs and bins in any city that is a hub for incoming backpackers, even if it can handle the paper, just to make them aware of it before they head off elsewhere and break some poor man's bathroom. You are usually not provided toilet paper (or soap) in public restrooms and any living arrangement geared to backpackers. You can buy single rolls in most stores.
Singapore you get everything everywhere and it is clean, ditto with Hong Kong and South Korea. Anywhere you can get to by talking English in China is equipped with paper and good plumbing. India is a crap shoot for everything clean and wonderful. Unless you are in Bangalore or one of the other few hubs where business and middle class people exist. You can expect no paper, and if you are lucky a public toilet not cleaned since never. I also suspect that no one cares about the plumbing anyway since sewage tends to down even upscale areas full of wonderful western brands (MG Road).
Sorry for that wall of text, as I have no e-cred here I tried to be detailed as possible so someone else with cred can back me up. The person above me is well traveled, but probably backpacking well traveled. Any place geared to the two or one week vacationers are built for tourist from the ground up. In other areas, a few dollars either way can get you murder stained sheets and overflowing toilets or a nice roll of paper and less murder stained sheets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.40.139 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

They do not flush TP in Belize.24.246.40.139 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Coloured paper

The current article has a section on toilet paper colour which suggests that coloured paper was a USA concept which has been discontinued. Coloured toilet paper is common in the UK (and perhaps many other countries?) so perhaps this should be mentioned here, but I cannot find an appropriate source for this.Anonymous watcher (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Toilet paper/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Twenty-six billion rolls of toilet paper, worth about US$2.4 billion, are sold yearly in America alone. Americans use an average of 23.6 rolls per capita a year. How is this possible when there are about 300 million Americans? 26,000,000,000 rolls / 300,000,000 people (approx) = 86.7 rolls per person on my calculator... I'd think the sales estimate is probably more accurate than the usage estimate. I find the alternate explanations that 2/3 of TP is not used, or that there are 1.1 billion people in America, hard to believe. :-)

Last edited at 20:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the euphemism?

Back in 2006, soon after this article began it's life, the lead said "Toilet paper...is...for the cleaning of the anus to remove fecal material after defecation or to remove remaining droplets of urine from the genitals after urination."

Now it says "Toilet paper is...used to maintain personal hygiene after human defecation or urination."

That Wikilink to personal hygiene doesn't help much at all. It doesn't even mention what we really use toilet paper for. So, in effect, nor does this article.

Someone has turned a very accurate lead into something terribly nice, but much less accurate. We aren't supposed to use euphemisms in Wikipedia. We don't say someone passed away. We say they died. (I do wish I could find the relevant policy. I know one exists.)

The article Toilet begins with "A toilet is a sanitation fixture used primarily for the disposal of human excrement and urine." That's the style we should be aiming for here.

If nobody can come up with a really good reason for inaccurate niceness rather than precise language, I'm changing it back to something close to what we had back in 2006. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Slang

"poo tickets", "bog roll" or even "bathroom tissue" "the junk for the trunk".
Can someone split out the common polite usage vs. slang here? American, polite would be toilet paper, whereas "shit paper" would be a particular vulgar slang for it. Having all English-speaking slang thrown in here without identification seems suboptimal.
—Dean 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

here in indiana its 'shit tickets',just thought id add that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"Different names, euphemisms and slang terms are used for toilet paper in countries around the world, including "bumf," "bum wad," "loo roll/paper," "bog roll," "toilet roll," "dunny roll/paper," "bathroom/toilet tissue," "TP," "arsewipe," and just "tissue.""

Has anyone ever heard toilet paper called "arsewipe"? As in - "Hey buddy, got any arsewipe?" I haven't. Arsewipe describes the action of cleaning one's bottom after defecating, and calling someone an "arsewipe" is an insult comparing that person to the action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.254 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Small mammals

Not being an expert on this, I have to ask if the claim of people using small mammals is true?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.98.244 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 April 2007‎ (UTC)

Probably not. The story seems to have its origins in a mad bit of writing by Rabelais. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.109.78 (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Moistened toilet paper

Moistened toilet paper has been on sale in the US since long before 2001. Did someone just make up a date for fun? MlleMFT (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about moistened TP, but many of us have been using "baby wipes" since the 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.9.178 (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sofkins was introduced by Scott (not yet a part of Kimberly-Clark, I think) in 1987. I'm pretty sure that was the first in the US. http://articles.philly.com/1987-07-13/business/26201541_1_scott-paper-toilet-paper-toilet-tissue So unless something else is meant by moist toilet paper, the article needs to be changed. Even if something else is meant, the article needs to be changed to explain what is meant. Dvd Avins (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo

There is a misspelling in the Commodity section, third paragraph, penultimate sentence: flucshable. I cannot fix as I am not registered. 208.123.144.34 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting error, I have fixed it for you. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2017

Remove the "and for human females" to just and for ... Corriejgreen (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

What's the reasoning behind the remove? Human males don't do this after urination Cannolis (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. nihlus kryik (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

CHANGE "Toilet paper is a tissue paper product used by people primarily for cleaning the anus and surrounding area of fecal material after defecation and by women for cleaning the perineal area of urine after urination and other bodily fluid releases." TO "Toilet paper is a tissue paper product used by people primarily for cleaning the anus and surrounding area of fecal material after defecation and for cleaning the perineal area of urine after urination and other bodily fluid releases." 2601:18A:C680:7B3C:D8A2:1EA9:6F37:38E1 (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Xylospongium

I think it might be relevant to add a link to the Xylospongium stub under See Also, to mention "toilet paper" in antiquity. Temerarius (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

http://www.toiletpaperhistory.net - unreliable source

I doubt the reliability of this source that is used in the article. It contains odd opinions and maths that don't even make sense - for example: Maths: "In an average household, the average roll of toilet paper lasts approximately five days." (So an average household goes through 73 rolls a year (365/5) Except that doesn't tally with the quote further down: "The average person uses 100 rolls of toilet paper per year"

Opinion: "If you hang your toilet paper so you can pull it from the bottom, you're deemed to be more intelligent than someone who hangs their toilet paper and pulls it from the top." - by whom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.150.23 (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Status of article

I would like to request that this article be moved from no rating in the WikiProject Health and Fitness scope, to a B-Class quality rating, and a Top-Importance importance scale rating. As well, I think it's worth requesting that the article be moved from a C-Class quality rating, and Low-Importance importance rating in the WikiProject China scope, to a B-Class quality rating, and a Top-Importance importance rating. If these changes cannot be made, then I would like to request an explanation as to why this article doesn't deserve these ratings. Kcingham (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Clean yourself" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Clean yourself. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of rolls per tree

The article's claim that "One tree produces about 200 rolls (100 pounds (45 kg)) of toilet paper and about 83 million rolls are produced per day." is not supported by the webpage cited http://www.toiletpaperhistory.net/toilet-paper-facts/toilet-paper-fun-facts/. The webpage states that "An average tree weighs 1,000 pounds which would yield 450 pounds of bleached chemical pulp, assuming a 90% converting yield, approximately 810 rolls of toilet paper would be produced from a single tree. (thanks to Don Guay)." Thus, at a minimum the article should be corrected to reflect 810 rolls as opposed to 200 rolls. However, even the 810 rolls per tree is suspect. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Toilet Roll Weight

I feel this is American centric or out dated Here in the UK Most toilet rolls I've weighed don't get near 200g Premium Andrex rolls for example are about 150g Asda toilet rolls 100g Cheapo stuff from the discount store 60g Under the "Size" discussion, it is stated that there are "issues with the size of the tissues," concerning the possible mismatch between the roll size and the roller. Can we please drop references to "issues?" I have rephrased this sentence, accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebuilding (talk • contribs) 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Quite agree. Also, someone needs to check their math. 23.6 rolls/capita at 100g each is only 2.36Kg, not the 23Kg cited. I think it should be 230 rolls/capita/yr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.11.40.246 (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A lot of talk about colours, and dimensins... it seems that there shoul db emore discussion about available standard thickness, 1000/roll vs 200/roll ; scott vs charmin etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

In the 21st century a japan troll by the name of bunneh created a fear tactic that the shortage due to the Corona virus pandemic also known as COVID-19. When this virus began in north America many individuals took this as a investment opportunity and bought out all toilet paper and selling it on the internet as such a higher cost making significant profits.

Birch bark was also used in north America as toilet paper around 200 bc by the natives mohawk and other native tribes. 10n3w01f (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Interstellarity (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistencies re per capita consumption

This article claims American per capita consumption of 23.6 rolls per year, backed up by fn. 16 and of 141 rools, backed up by fn. 49. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.213.82 (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)