Talk:Bamboo textile

Bamboo fabric concerns

"Bamboo fabric requires handwashing, so it's impractical for items that are worn regularly." The citation for this seems to refer to yarn for hand knitting. I've been machine washing my bamboo towels for several years and they're quite intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.226.146 (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bamboo doesnot require handwashing, you may wash in a washer hoever 100% bamboo is very delicate and you should consider using a delicate bag.unsigned

Rayon has variable strength when wet, but it's often very weak. This applies to bamboo rayon, too. Since the rayon is made with fairly pure cellulose, it doesn't make much of a chemical difference what plant the cellulose comes from. So probably some bamboo rayon would need handwashing and some won't, just like rayon. I suggest reading the rayon article. HLHJ (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. - Walter Ego 19:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

• Support: I'm in support of the proposed merger with Bamboo fibre. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I support that they be merged as well. Bamboo threads and fabric would be the textile, and the fiber should be a sub section as part of the overall. I also think that the controversy needs to be it's own section and not randomly thrown out. Fact should be well researched. The FTC has little to back up their case and is likely being influenced by the cotton industry lobbying. in the old days of "disinfopedia" controversial issues would be solved with facts and not allow the FTC to just say whatever without some counterargument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solight111 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Problems

Article seems biased. Should include information on FTC's recent accusations of bamboo textile producers and marketers: []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.133.214 (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be possible if the FTC had released any facts, but they didn't and this is supposed to be the place to resolve truth in controversy.

This article reads like an advertisement from the bamboo textile industry. Much of it has the tone of a press release and is probably lifted verbatim from a source of this type. Indeed, some of the "sources" of information cited are just links to online stores selling bamboo textile products. It also repeats the same points verbatim quite a bit (another hallmark of PR). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.246 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above. Every section ends with a very positive endorsement of the bamboo textile industry. Examples of the final sentence from each section starting at Manufacture of Bamboo Viscose:

• "The resulting bamboo viscose fibre is extremely soft to the touch."
• "The natural processing of litrax bamboo allows the fibre to remain strong to produce an extremely high quality product. This process gives a material that is very durable."
• "This means that every company working with bamboo starts with the same raw material and that this material is not contaminated."
• "...bamboo's organic and natural properties make it non-irritating so perfect for extra sensitive skin"
• "It is the main species for bamboo timber and plays an important role for the ecological environment"
• "This regular harvesting is actually of benefit to the health of the plant – studies have shown that felling of canes leads to vigorous re-growth and an increase in the amount of biomass the next year"
• "In a time when land use is under enormous pressure, bamboo’s high yield per hectare becomes very significant."
• "One hectare of bamboo sequesters 62 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year while one hectare of young forest only sequesters 15 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year"
• Etc.

I needn't go on. Also, the absence of periods in the above examples is not my doing. I would like to see someone with a better understanding of Bamboo textiles do some serious editing of this article. Can we add some sort of "this article is suspected of bias" banner? Boehrb (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; unfortunately, I don't have the expertise to fix the many problems with this article. - PKM (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Came to this article expecting education, not lobbying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gparshal (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. There is absolutely no reason why bamboo viscose should have properties any better or different from viscose from any other source. It's all just reconstituted cellulose, after all. • TheBendster (talk) 23 August 2010, 12:04 (UTC) 12:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent many years working with European Union colleagues, colleagues in ISO etc developing legislation and standards to protect consumers from this sort of misleading nomenclature. The essential test was simple - can you take a small specimen of material (fibre,yearn or fabric) and test it to establish precisely what it is and how much there is (in a blend). I doubt that is possible with this material- the term 'bamboo viscose' is an attempt to mislead the general public but more importantly is probably illegal (in Europe at least) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.8.206 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Most of the claims are untrue or suggestive at best. There are no reasonable studies that support these claims. As evidence only eco-friendly websites from the esoteric field are given. This is "fubar". Is this wanna-believe over real scientiffic evidence? For what I know, none of the experts of the textile industry or at universities involved in biomemetics or botany that I contacted have ever heard of Bamboo-Kun or most of the claims. They don't confirm the existence of 100% bamboo fabrics. Bamboo as a basis for the Viscose-process yes, but Viscose doesn't retain any of the qualities of the source material. The sad thing is, that people fall for it and wanna believe. So much in fact, that they fight critics. Amazing how easy one can spread lies and profit from it. Are there no questioning critical think people around anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.159.142 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The whole concept of calling 'viscose' 'bamboo fibre' is a nonsense and is misleading for consumers as well as contravening EC Directives. Calling this product 'bamboo' is loke calling cow dung ' grass'. The input grass is dissolved in acid/ the input bamboo is dissolved in NaOH I assume. Both are then regenerated and exuded through a spinneret (of sorts).

Sorry but the whole idea of bamboo fibre is a marketing tool intended to confuse and mislead the consumer.

See EC Directive 96/74 on name for textile products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.8.206 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny this discussion sounds like an anti-bamboo campaign without a "fact" to discuss. For instance, Entegrion adapted the fibers with glass for bandages. Approved by the FDA! (more details coming), also your argument on the break down and reassembly process of rayon isn't fact based at all. To suggest it isn't bamboo afterwords is like saying gold is only gold till you smelt out the impurities (shit is a lot more than just grass, it's opinion and not facts). Also Okeo Tex testing for residual chemicals haven't been entered or mentioned (#1 testing for textiles safety).

I would also like to see some investigation figures or test results(facts) from the FTC, before we throw the baby out! "I don't have the expertise to fix the many problems with this article -- All by unsigned editors!" The biggest problem with the actual article is that it needs to be further fact checked and have all opinion removed, replacing them with facts.

This article is little more than an ad leaflet at the moment, with biased language and a ton of unsubstantiated claims. Most of the "references" are also either straight up clothing stores, or affiliate farming blogs.

Any chance that someone is willing to rewrite it in a more appropriate vein, or (god help him) clean up this mess? pathanb (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this article as needing to be checked for bias. If I get time I'll come back and try to make the language more neutral. If I get more time, I'll see about putting in some proper references and checking facts. Aidanomatic (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a stab at making it more neutral, and a bit less confusing. Comments very welcome. The article still seems to have more on fibers than textiles. HLHJ (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The stated conversions between the tons and tonnes are unnecessary and completely wrong! This is so blatant as to affect the perception of the entire article. The other criticisms pertaining to bias and contradiction also seem well founded. A bit of a shame because I believe Wikipedia to be a noble enterprise and the contributors generally to be of kind good intentions 1.132.106.105 (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

POV tag

I've repositioned the POV tag to the apparently non-neutral section on ecological benefits, now retitled . (Another problematic subsection has already been tagged as an advertisement .) 86.131.2.149 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Lack of focus in Pesticides and Fertilisers

It seems to me that the Pesticides and Fertilisers section focuses too much on cotton. Having a baseline to compare bamboo textiles to is fine, but half of the section is talking not about the article's topic, but about cotton, which seems excessive. Anybody else agree?Jetjaws (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In lieu of a response, I'll be making edits along the lines of what was specified above Jetjaws (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

212.114.159.142, I reverted your edits not because I disagree with the content or direction of the edits(in fact, I wholeheartedly agree with them and am glad that someone like you is interested in helping edit this article), but because they were both unsourced and created conflict within the article, where it should really only belong here. Since all the statements in the article that you did not disprove(pesticide use, CO2 consumption, etc..) are covered later in the article, I propose that the entire section simply be deleted. Jetjaws (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction - antibacterial properties

Agree with above comments. Also noted contradiction in article over antibacterial properties of fabric made from bamboo: "Anti-bacterial - bamboo actually kills germs and bacteria that accumulate in fabrics made of bamboo. This means that bamboo won't harbor bacteria as much as other fabrics."

"However, the finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property; research is being conducted whereby antibacterial agents are being added to bamboo fabric to give it antibacterial properties." 82.41.6.241 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The first statement is the correct one. The sources provided for the first claim are simply links to retailer websites, which should almost never be cited as they have a huge conflict of interest. The source for the second one is a university paper. You can remove the first statement if you want, but as evidenced above, I was planning on deleting the entire section it was included in eventually if there weren't issues raised about that action. Jetjaws (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

source #3 should be removed

It appears to be leading to a .txt document but really just leads you to a baby clothing store and I think It should be removed and the status should be changed to reflect the lack of a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.228.204 (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it, 96.8.228.204. Thank you for the heads-up. If you'd like help to do it yourself next time, please feel free to contact me. HLHJ (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Section about problems around bamboo

Currently the Pesticides and fertilizers section has problems/criticism against bamboo like "finished bamboo fabric does not retain this antibacterial property" and that it lets UV pass through etc.

This could be an own section entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhaymate (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Added this section, feel free to add information to it if you have any.Mayhaymate (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Bamboo textile

I noticed that another, smaller version of this article at Bamboo textile. Since both articles obviously cover the same subject, a merger is a no brainer. Therefore, I'm skipping a merger proposal, moving the content of that article below, and asking for your help to integrate any facts that are missing from this article. I have left a redirect behind. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bamboo textile

Bamboo textiles are any type of cloth, garment or woven fabric that is made out of natural bamboo fibres. Natural fibres are identified by their air permeability, antibacterial properties, moisture release abilities, increased biodegradability, and apparent lack of release of any harmful substances, in comparison to many man-made fibres.

Bamboo (Bambuseae) is a perennial plant of the Poaceae grass family of the Bambusoideae subfamily. Bamboo grows in shoots and consists of a culm (the hollow shoot), the node (the connecting joint), and the internode (the section between the nodes). Bamboo is self-propagating because of ots underground storage stems, known as rhizomes. Bamboo is considered one of the fastest growing plants in the world; the plants are know to grow over 3 inches in one day, 30 days for a full height culm to grow, and it fully matures within 2 years. Some species have been known to grow up to 100 ft in height. The root system is relatively shallow, as the roots do not reach more than 30 cm below the surface. Thamnocalamus spathiflorus 'Nepalensis' is the most commonly used type of bamboo to create textiles.

Improved technology has turned the bamboo fabric into a resilient, soft fabric. The bamboo textile manufacturing process requires much less pesticides and fertilizers than traditional cotton processing; most bamboo textiles are considered “bamboo rayon,” which is made from dissolving the bamboo pulp into its cellulose component and then spun into viscous fibres. In addition to its environmental regeneration qualities of carbon sequestering, bamboo shoots can release up to 30% more oxygen than other trees. Textiles that are made entirely out of bamboo are labelled as having environmentally friendly or health-enhancing qualities.

Source of raw material

This section seems to be verging on a sales pitch for a particular company. I can't get most of the references to expose content that supports the claims made and don't read chinese, so can't tell whether one of the references ties them all together. The claim that globally, all bamboo textiles come from a single source of raw material seems dubious. I don't really see how this section improves the explanatory value of the overall article, so my inclination is to delete it entirely.--Wcoole (talk) 00:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It does seem odd, Wcoole. I found an English-language article mentioning them, not really all that positively, and I've added that info, but I've left the ad-like content in. My Mandarin is really not good enough, either, and if you'd like to look for a Mandarin-speaking editor, please do. HLHJ (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

essentially same CHEMICAL

This sentence: "However, the EPA noted: "Although the manufacturing process further purifies the cellulose, alters the physical form of the fiber, and modifies the molecular orientation within the fiber and its degree of polymerization, the product is essentially the same chemical as the raw material" seems to state an irrelevant fact. Just as a brick made of burnt clay is essentially chemically similar to a vase made from burnt clay, the two items' physical properties differ enough to make them uninterchangeable, incompatible in their use. In case of the fibres and textiles made from them it is exactly the physical properties that matter and the chemical similarity has no informational value in their description. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

I totally agree, 80.98.114.70, and I've rewritten it. Please let me know what you think. Please also feel free to fix such problems yourself; you obviously have a better understanding of the subject matter than that conveyed by the text, so your contributions would improve the article. If you hit any snags, contact me through my user page, I'd be happy to help you. HLHJ (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the change away from "chemistry". There are nuances within fiber circles about regenerated cellulose vs polyolefins vs natural or bast fibers. The "positive" argument for regenerated cellulose is that it is the same chemistry as a plant (or as in nature), without chemical additions, though it is structurally different than as it grows in nature. This is similar to definition differences within ISO 16128, which defines natural and naturally derived - natural is as grown and naturally derived is same chemistry but modified. The regenerated cellulose industry, whether its bamboo or beech or other, push "the same chemistry", to make rayon sound natural like cotton. Indydog (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

bamboo fibre section - 1 sentence deleted

i removed "In superseding these other fibers in these various areas, supporters of bamboo fiber products and goods tout it as more eco-friendly than cotton and polyester." because this was presented as a conclusion of 1:better mechanical strength and 2:better moisture wicking capacity of the cotton fibres (before dissolved to make viscose/rayon) than cotton and polyester fibres. The deleted sentence is sleazy first of all, claiming that "supporters" claim something, and for second the claim for eco-friendliness (that is what the sentence reads like) is not proven by fibre strength and fibre moisture-wicking properties. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

biodegradable - section

I rephrased the first sentence, to reflect that bamboo-originated cellulose fibers are indeed biodegradable but no different from all the other cellulose fibres in that.

Also deleted the last sentence "Synthetic fibres such as nylon and polyester are not biodegradable and remain in landfill for longer." because though it is true, it has nothing to do in the article about bamboo fibres, it belongs to the articles about those synthetic fibres. And because "longer" (and its ilk that populate this article from start to end) is really a far shot from encyclopedical "factualness" anyway. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

A note on biodegradeability: in landfill, nothing should biodegrade. This is by design, as a landfill is an anaerobic environment to prevent biodegradation. Many materials, if they were allowed to biodegrade in landfill, would offgas methane, which is an explosion hazard. This is why landfills are "sealed" to prevent any biodegradation. In the United States per the FTC Green Guide, it is illegal to claim a material is biodegradable if it is a) commonly disposed of in waste streams meant for landfill and b) not experimentally proven to degrade in anaerobic conditions. All cellulosic fibers do not degrade in anaerobic environments. So, in landfill, a cellulosic fiber like rayon, no matter what it is made from, would remain for roughly an equivalent amount of time as a polyolefin fiber like PE or nylon.Indydog (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

how to add a "see also:" section to the end

It would be useful to add rayon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon) to the see also secton under the references. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC).

Adding rayon would definitely be a good contribution, 80.98.114.70, so be bold! Editing Wikipedia is just like editing a talk page. You can copy-paste-edit the "see also" section from another page (click "edit" on the other page, and just read it and don't save any changes), or you can use the Visual Editor. Thank you for pointing it out, and please ask me if you are still not sure how to add the section. HLHJ (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rayon is already linked in the article; see also is for additional links, not repetitions. WP:SEEALSO says "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Polysham

Does anybody know what polysham is? I've seen it popping up in various things to do with bamboo fabric like that found in sheets and pillowcases. My best guess is that it is a fake polyester made from bamboo, possibly the rayon variety. Nothing here in this wikipage on Bamboo textiles. Samsbanned (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it might be a typo on the bedding labels, Samsbanned. "Sham" is a name for a pillow cover/slipcase, and "poly" is commonly used as a abbreviation for "polyester", which would be a plausible material for a microfiber pillow sham. If this were a new fiber, I'd expect something on the internet about it apart from people asking what it is. I'd also expect the manufacturer to hire a marketing advisor who'd tell them that "sham" means "fake" in English and maybe another name would be better.

Making polyester from bamboo cellulose seems to me like it would probably be uneconomic, but Wikipedia:Reference desk could find you a synthetic chemist if you want to know. HLHJ (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi HLHJ, Samsbanned - might it be a version of petersham ribbon made using polyester? Mabalu (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

But then again, I just Googled and it doesn't make sense. Weird there aren't any news or book hits on it... Mabalu (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For the record, and nine years later, note that it is not possible to make rayon from polyester. - Walter using an LLM? Ego 08:46, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bamboo textile. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214095301/http://www.geniaal.be/downloads/EBS4johangielis.doc to http://www.geniaal.be/downloads/EBS4johangielis.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510030851/http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/COTTON/crop.htm to http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/cotton/crop.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://events.earthhourcanada.org/what_we_do/footprint/agriculture/commodities/cotton/better_management_practices/water_use/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414024630/http://www.ejfoundation.org/page332.html to http://www.ejfoundation.org/page332.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601093547/http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html to http://www.ifoam.org/growing_organic/1_arguments_for_oa/criticisms_misconceptions/misconceptions_no7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Copypasting

Per the tags I added as a result of discovering copyright issues during my recent peer review, here are the two links from which a good deal of content in this article was lifted:

Most of the "Ecological considerations" section

Most of the first graf of "Mechanically produced fine bamboo fiber". Never mind ... it looks now like they copied us and, at least in the first source's case, properly attributed it, and the second source seems to have just copied from the first.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Objectivity

The "ecological considerations" section reads like marketing literature from a bamboo company.

Can we source some opposing views? Aliza250 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

dyeing 100% bamboo yarn

how you dye 100% bamboo yarn ? ~2025-37861-91 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the type of bamboo yarn it is. - Walter Ego 06:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If the yarn is rayon, there are many different dyeing routes extant but rayon isn't bamboo. For actual bamboo, not so much. - Walter using an LLM? Ego 08:49, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Major improvement proposed

I propose that the parts of this article not about bamboo textile be removed.

This means everything about rayon which is not bamboo but regenerated cellulose fabric, should go.

In case what I'm proposing isn't clear I would like to see more than half of this article removed totally, readers redirected to one of the viscose articles, which already contains the relevant text. (cf: Viscose rayon)

(please note that after the Bamboo chips are used in the various rayon manufacturing processes, NO BAMBOO REMAINS. It has all been converted to rayon)

This means that there are NO BAMBOO PROPERTIES in rayon manufactured from Bamboo chips.

Differences between Bamboo chip rayon and ordinary rayon using the same manufacturing route - NONE

Price differences between "bamboo rayon" and real rayon of the same type - at the moment, August 26, bamboo rayon is approximately 20% more expensive than the same quality rayon.

Given samples of "bamboo rayon" and rayon of the same manufacturing route (viscose or Lyocell processes, the Cuprammonium process is obsolete) there isn't an expert in the world who can tell the difference - because there is no difference.

Opinions before I take the knife to the article? Walter using an LLM? Ego 18:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

For a long time this distinction hasn't been made in the article, perhaps because of WP:COI edits. Removing all mentions of the viscose-fibre product is well overdue. AntientNestor (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding. - Walter using an LLM? Ego 22:05, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

well, I bit the bullet, and welcome comments. - Walter Ego 07:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Here goes, then: To me the piece, particularly the lede section, (for obvious historical reasons with article) pays too much attention to the incorrect substance, rather than the actual fibre product the article now describes. I don't think the retting ("rotting") process is correctly described as scraping. Otherwise, a good start. AntientNestor (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

"Bamboo socks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bamboo socks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 August 22 § Bamboo socks until a consensus is reached. Walter Ego 07:31, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Off topic additions and unintelligible edsum

Hello Ahecht I note your unintelligible edsum and off topic additions to this page here Please could you explain your edits a little better, as they do not look like an improvement to the page. Thanks - Walter Ego 12:55, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog You made a whole bunch of edits to the page which removed a ton of content and context, and left the resulting page disjointed and biased (including calling marketing viscose rayon as unqualified "illegal", when the article only indicated that there was regulation against it in the United States, and even in that case it is a civil violation). I undid those revisions just to get the page back to a decent starting point, and then re-implemented many of your edits, especially those that were focused around removing sentences that were redundant, off topic, or uncited. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I've removed your edits, which did not seem constructive. You'll have to point out the "unqualified illegal" bit and the disjointed and biased bit. I'd be very interested in the biased bit !!! In other words, I undid those revisions just to get the page back to a decent starting point. - Walter Ego 15:24, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Please see WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit that removed massive amounts of content from the article, it was reverted, the next step is to discuss it, not to edit war. You cannot categorically state that all marketing of rayon as bamboo is illegal (Modern clothing illegally labeled as being made from bamboo is usually viscose rayon...) -- the only citations in the article state that a single agency in a single country has determined that some uses are misleading and won lawsuits. You also have nonsensical things like putting the description of "odapoovu" under "Advertising standards". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I was working with BRD in mind, of course. Your first two edits were the Bold ones - did'nt you know that? - what is odapoovu? some sort of code? a magic word? I've done bugger all with it.

If you don't understand what's going on here, I'd only be too happy to explain. Walter Ego 16:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

AND YES, i CAN CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT ALL MARKETING OF VISCOSE AS BAMBOO IS NOT LEGAL. thats the whole point. Walter Ego 16:08, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog No, your bold edits were those made between Diffs 1370110123 and 1371107874 on August 19th. Odapoovu is the subject of the second paragraphs that you put under "Advertising standards" for some reason. And you cannot state that all marketing of viscose as bamboo is illegal because not all of the world is subject to regulations by an agency of the United States government, and this is the English Wikipedia, not the United States Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:52, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Do not keep re-implementing your changes without discussion. That is considered edit warring and can lead to a block. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I will not engage with your really poor understanding. It is quite clear that you haven't got a WP:CLUE what's going on and yet you have all those edits under your hat!!! How did you get away with it if what we see here is representative? - Walter Ego 18:57, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been more than 24 hours since Ahecht accused me of bad-faith editing, specifically outright lying in order to move the page to my requirements.

Although the page was already at what I wanted, they made two bad faith edits to return the page to an old version, and made their nasty accusation about me, and threatened me with sanctions.

All this from what is obviously a rogue admin.

23 hours absence from the project in these circumstances, when the editors Admin threats are chilling routine editing is totally unacceptable. I have considered taking this admin to ANI for sanctions, but wondered what other lurkers here think?

In the meantime, I am going to respond to myself on the topic below. - Walter Ego 17:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Accusation of lying

--Ahecht You appear to be accusing me of attempting to lie to this page to support my editing. Is this in fact the case? - Walter Ego 05:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

As there has been no response in over 23 hours, I shall consider this closed, and return the main page to the last good version. - Walter Ego 17:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog That's not the way this works. I'm not saying you're "lying", I'm saying that the way in which you worded things isn't correct. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Legal Framework

Legal requirements under which we operate are designed to ensure customers and consumers aren’t short-changed cover the following sort of thing, no matter the country specifying.

Obligatory requirements for labelling are dictated in areas such as language usage, care-labelling, COO requirements, manufacturer identification, and for our purposes here Fibre content disclosure requires specific wordings and disclosures.

(personal note – the various country specific requirements for fibre content labelling require us to accurately label fibre content of garments, and varying sections of garments. All countries want accuracy, so tend to have very similar requirements. You might say that they all require the same thing. My SHOUTING in the section above goes to this. The legal requirements mirror each other across countries, obviously)

Just for the craic, the following are the names of some of legislation covering this in the various major and minor markets of the world -

The EU has Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011. Covers quite a few countries with one set of requirements

The UK has Textile Products (Labelling and Fibre Composition) Regulations 2012 which is in fact just a facsimile of the EU regulations

Canada has the Textile Labelling Act (and the newly labeled Lake Merika)

Japan has the Household Goods Quality Labeling Act

New Zealand has the Consumer Information Standards (Fibre Content Labelling) Regulations 2000

The USA has The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act + FTC Care Labelling Rules. They are uncannily similar to European requirements.

The British Virgin Islands has no dedicated textile‑labeling law; follows general consumer protection norms. In other words, they rely on suppliers to their country using the requirements of one of the major specifiers, the USA or EU. Many smaller states and territories rely on this option.

Walter Ego 07:32, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The US, EU/UK, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the BVI aren't the entire world. If you want a source for my assertation that the practice of marketing rayon as bamboo isn't universally illegal (even if it should be), the Textile Institute Australia wouldn't be petitioning Parliament to require accurate labeling of viscose rayon if marketing it as bamboo was already illegal: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=95886203-d033-41a5-bdfc-c88deaadb069&subId=744948 (for some background, in 2010, the labeling laws in Australia were changed so that only care instructions were mandatory, not fiber content). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 01:51, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

But other parts of the article do discuss global practices, which is why appending the template to that section instead of the header is perfectly appropriate. Feel free to expand it with regulatory information for other countries, since you do clearly have knowledge on it. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 03:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Also a single paragraph is not "undo weight". Come off it. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 03:09, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I can't expand it, because literally any information that I add to the article gets immediately reverted by Roxy the dog. I have tried several times to add nuance and additional information on the regulatory framework, including Special:Diff/1373182744 and Special:Diff/1373900008, so we're stuck at an impasse per WP:STATUSQUO where all I can do is add tags. I'm of the opinion that the best way to fight misinformation and shady marketing of "rayon" as "bamboo" is to provide readers with information and context so that someone looking for more information on the new "bamboo" shirt the're thinking of buying can discover why the marketing is misleading, whereas Roxy the dog seems to think the best way is to scrub any information on it whatsoever from the article, including removing any example of textiles marketed incorrectly as bamboo, and trying to have redirects such as Bamboo socks deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

It is illegal in the United States because the US regulatory agency with the relevant authority says it is. The US-centric flag on that section is appropriate, but it doesn't need to be in the article header since other sections aren't affected, and it's certainly not WP:UNDUE. Just slapping those on doesn't help readers.

Your changes to phrasing moved the needle a hair on implying that it's global, but they don't actually add information about the status elsewhere. Your above information about Australia would be useful, as would highlighting the similarities as would highlighting the similarities and any differences between the US and the other countries Rich listed above. There's also the question of where such products are actually sold, because the legal status is moot in places where they don't exist. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 00:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat I added content with more information on the US, Canada, EU, and Australia, along with articles showing that the products are widely sold there. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

That looks better, thanks. FYI there is a flag on the open access journal, but since it's only supporting the market survey I'm not inclined to worry about it. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:50, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

"Bamboo socks" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Bamboo socks has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 September 4 § Bamboo socks until a consensus is reached. Walter Ego 06:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Citation needed !!!

this edit to add " Although some jurisdictions require labeling such products as "rayon made from bamboo" or similar" is uncited and needs to be. It is a lie, not true, unciteable and the editor behind it is clearly confused and has not been acting in good faith in this topic area. You need to provide some evidence for your conjecture, because that's what it is, that some jurisdictions encourage innaccurate labelling. Stop your nonsense editing. You are making a fool of yourself (thats ok though imho) and the project (not acceptable) . There are no jurisdictions that require such a silly label, which would be inaccurate on a garment. See here for some background for the hard of thinking. Walter Ego 14:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Ahect, you should know that I am referring to the actual legal requirements for content labeling, i.e. how the content label is worded, very much not talking about associated non-label advice which sometimes appears in guidelines.

Industry cowboys have taken advantage of what they think is ambiguity in regulations, and the mislabeled mess is the result. (All the results there show fabrics there that are not bamboo. You are making a case to encourage Google to carry on with this sort of shite search results, amongst other things.

Pull up your socks - get with the plan. Walter Ego 14:41, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

That exact wording is used by the FTC...

If you sell clothing, linens, or other textile products, you’re responsible for making truthful disclosures about the fiber content. If your product isn’t made directly of bamboo fiber — but is a manufactured fiber for which bamboo was the plant source — it should be labeled and advertised using the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon, or “rayon made from bamboo.”

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/alt172-how-avoid-bamboozling-your-customers.pdf Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, 'tis already cited later in the article. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

... and where exactly does the regulation say that the words "rayon made from bamboo" should appear? a response to this is critical please??? ....

I promise you that it does not actually go onto the content label. A content label gives the exact composition of a fabric from which the item is made, in most of these cases "100% viscose rayon" without mention of bamboo. All the bamboo prevarication isn't actually on the fibre content label, but is an astonishing (to me - I retired before any of this crap started) extra unregulated label to satisfy the fraudsters. By fraudsters I mean those people who label their viscose rayon garments for sale as if they were made of Bamboo. (Note : atm, viscose rayon is 20% cheaper on commodity markets than the stuff sold as "Bamboo Rayon" Ha) Walter Ego 16:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's only an example. From what I have read, regulations don't define the exact words you have to use, only that you must/should (Wikipedia is worldwide - being mandatory in the US doesn't mean it is worldwide) include the generic name (rayon in US & Canada, viscose in EU) and cannot simply call it "bamboo". If you do not think this is the case, you should cite something that says otherwise rather than just reverting and calling it a lie. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

You silly thing, the regulations, including the ones you have read do define the exact wording. You are clearly incompetent in this area (reading) and perhaps should withdraw. - Walter Ego 18:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Statements in the lede don't need to be cited if they are cited elsewhere in the article per MOS:CITELEAD. Citations 8 and 9 clearly back up that some jurisdictions require the labeling. The US FTC says at https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/how-avoid-bamboozling-your-customers If your product isn’t made directly of bamboo fiber — but is a manufactured fiber for which bamboo was the plant source — it should be labeled and advertised using the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon, or “rayon made from bamboo.” Calling this a lie when it's cited directly in the article is just arguing in bad faith. And again, you have not provided any source that substantiates that labeling rayon as Bamboo is universally illegal. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 03:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

That link does not say what you think it says. you have not refuted. - Walter Ego 20:23, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Poor quality edits.

In the lead fgs. I had hoped to remove myself from this page for the time being as I was losing my patience with the standards of editing I was facing. This latest is extraordinarily poor and I felt obliged to step in and correct. For reference, I have made two edits to correct the lead, diff1 and diff2. please do not restore these again, as you will be edit warring, and on a hiding to nothing if you try to accuse me of any wikiwrongdoing. I may take a look at the rest of the article, but I'm satisfied that the lead is now reasonably reasonable. Walter Ego 20:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I still don't see how the FTC and Government of Canada sources don't support the claim of how these products must be labelled. Is the purpose of Wikipedia not to go by what the sources say, even if we may disagree with them? If you have a more reliable source, please cite that. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those sources describe how the content labeling should be done, and certainly do not specify what should be done regarding notbamboo rayon. I shall quote Ahecht from his post above "it should be labeled and advertised using the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon" Note that the extension of this quote above says ... "rayon made from bamboo" which is not a generic name for viscose rayon, and therefore cannot be used on the content label. It is not precluded from other commentary regarding content, and unscrupulous manufacturers and sellers regularly make incredibly misleading and false claims surrounding this. See https://pandalondon.com/ for an example. there are many many others. You guys may be referring to this loophole

It should also be noted that content labeling requirements specify exactly how the generic content labeling should be worded, and the percentage content accuracy required. "rayon made from bamboo" is not an acceptable generic content label. - Walter Ego 21:13, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your stance. So when the FTC writes "it should be labeled and advertised using the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon, or 'rayon made from bamboo,'" they are stating "rayon" is an example of a proper generic name but are not claiming "rayon made from bamboo" is one. I'm quite sure we're in agreement so far.

The lack of clarity comes from the compound example which goes beyond the generic name? Stating it comes from bamboo would be non-required information, so then it comes down to whether this is "false, deceptive, or misleading." If they say "rayon made from bamboo" is okay, I wouldn't expect them to also consider it misleading, but technically I guess there's room for human judgement. Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It's literally a direct quote from the source. It doesn't get any more supported than that. If they say it's acceptable then it's acceptable. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 02:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Then I'm very happy that they don't say that, as I explained above. - Walter Ego 05:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I have not seen any explanation as to why a direct quote doesn't say what it says. It is not paraphrased; it is the exact same wording published by the official government agencies with authority in this matter. If you have evidence that the phrasing has been changed since that time please provide sources proving it. Otherwise it's just your own interpretation. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 06:00, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is a good source for generic names of manufactured textile fibres, as required by the American version of the regulations for textile content labeling https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-303/section-303.7 . Note that nowhere in the regulations, of which my link is a part, do the words "rayon made from bamboo" appear as an acceptable generic name for content labelling

Do you need me to extract the generic names from the list and present them to you here, or will you read them for yourself from the link to the regulations I provide?

Note that if a generic name does not appear on the full list, it is not acceptable as part of a content label on textiles covered by the legislation. --- Walter Ego 07:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog I'm honestly baffled that anyone could read the sentence it should be labeled and advertised using the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon, or “rayon made from bamboo.” and somehow come away with the impression that it is saying that "rayon made from bamboo" isn't acceptable. The sentence is of the form "it should be labeled and advertised using A or B", where A is the proper generic name for the fiber, such as rayon, and B is “rayon made from bamboo.”. There is simply no other reading that makes any sense.

However, even if you somehow read the FTC's sentence to mean that "rayon made from bamboo" is not acceptable, you are once again completely ignoring that other countries exist. The official guidance from the Canadian government is The advertisements and labels for these fabrics must include terms such as "rayon", "viscose", "rayon from bamboo" or "viscose from bamboo". No waffling on whether or not bamboo is in the generic name, just flat out saying that as long as it includes rayon or viscose that using terms such as "rayon from bamboo" or "viscose from bamboo" are fine.

I'm trying really hard to assume good faith here, but I'm having a hard time reconciling that with your claim that direct quotes from multiple official government sources are somehow "not supported". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the parts cited in my previous link, possibly 303.16 (d) and 303.42 (c) apply: "Non-deceptive terms which are properly and truthfully descriptive of a fiber may be used in conjunction with the generic name of such fiber" (this part is identical between them) Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Only those approved generic names are allowed on content labels. None of the handwaving above changes that. - Walter Ego 19:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The source you linked to does not, so far as I can tell, say that a label cannot say what the source of the cellulose used to make the rayon is. Two sources have been provided which explicitly permit the phrasing "rayon made from bamboo". What source do you have which explicitly forbids this phrasing? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-303/section-303.7

For the third time, only those generic names on that list are allowed on content labels in the US markets.

Come on people, get a clue. - Walter Ego 20:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I didn't ask for you to link the list of generic names again, I asked you to provide your source for the claim that a label may contain nothing other than those generic names, or at least specifically prohibits additional information in the form "made from bamboo" or similar. The act you cite specifically permits at least some other information (e.g. in this section, which allows for the use of "non-deceptive fiber trademarks" alongside the generic name. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog Even if it's true that only those generic names on that list are allowed on content labels in the US markets, Canada is not subject to 16 CFR 303.7, since it's an entirely different country. And it's not true, because, as "Here for the one billionth edit" pointed out, 16 CFR § 303.16 (d) allows descriptive terms to be used in conjunction with the generic names from 16 CFR § 303.7 on labels and 16 CFR § 303.42 (c) allows the same in advertising. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

But Canada has the same textiles, with the same names. this is basic stuff. A textile doesn't change its name depending on whichever borders it has crossed. Viscose is viscose in the USA and Canada. (Trump cannot change this like he changes oceans, lakes and Kennedy centres. Walter Ego 20:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Canadian legislation will require accurate labeling, and will bring almost identical or identical results on the content label in both countries. - Walter Ego 20:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm going to trust an official publication of the Canadian government over a random person on the internet as to what they consider "accurate labeling". Competition Bureau Canada has officially stated that they consider "Rayon from bamboo" to be acceptable. If you disagree with that, I'd suggest lobbying the government, not trying to use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we please base discussion of what the article should say on what reliable sources support, rather than what Wikipedia user Roxy the dog believes must be true of Canadian legislation? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

What is a content label on textiles?

It appears that I'm the only one who knows anything about content labeling.

Would anybody like me to explain a little on basic facts and truths in this area.

Remember that I am talking about the legal requirements for textile fibre content labeling in the various world markets. Astonishingly, all the various markets encourage verifiable truths on these labels, and that textiles do not change their type depending on which international jurisdiction items are sold in. Walter Ego 20:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Textiles do absolutely change their labels depending on the international jurisdiction they are sold in, and the sentence in question is specifically about labeling. Most countries require mandatory fiber content labeling, others such as Australia only require care instructions, and still others require both. The US and Canada allows labeling things as "rayon", whereas the EU requires "viscose".

No one here is arguing that selling something like rayon socks as "bamboo socks" isn't misleading -- it absolutely is and more governments should crack down on the practice -- but the laws in many places do allow such products to list things like "rayon made from bamboo" or "viscose from bamboo" on product labels and in advertising. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

CONTENT LABEL has a specific meaning. - Walter Ego 20:43, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't give a sparrows fart about product labels. - Walter Ego 20:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Re the differences in rayon labelling, yes - generic names are slightly different between jurisdictions regarding regenerated cellulose, but fortunately meaning on labels is clear.

Regarding the Aussies, they are a bunch of convicts anyway, I suspect they'll close that loophole soon, having opened it. - Walter Ego 20:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Cool, but the sentence in question in the article just says "labeling", which is completely consistent with all of the sources you've been shown. 16 CFR § 303.16 (d) allows adding descriptive terms before the generic fiber name on any label or labels attached to the textile fiber product.

Regardless of your opinion of certain countries or your predictions about what they may do in the future, Wikipedia can only report on what has already happened. See the first paragraph of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS: we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. We are, by design, supposed to be "behind the curve". This is because we only report information that is verifiable using reliable sources, and we base articles on secondary and independent sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

here is the UK equivalent

Annex 1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2011/1007/annex/I

Look how remarkable similar/identical the generic names are. It's almost as if they were describing the same thing - what would that be I wonder? - Walter Ego 21:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Behind the curve !!! hahahaha. content labeling has been going on for a long time. How far behind the curve do you think we should be? Walter Ego 21:39, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

What is it you are arguing? "Rayon" isn't on the list, which supports what Ahecht says about labels varying by country. I believe Article 16 would be the UK/EU's equivalent to what we'd discussed about additional information: "Other information shall be always displayed separately." Here for the one billionth edit (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Apology

A trusted friend has given me a severe reprimand for my recent out of control behaviour here and elsewhere, and made some pointed suggestion as to what I should do now. I should apologise for my out of control behaviour and attitude towards you all, I do see that it is not acceptable. This is that apology.

I shall also withdraw from this article. - Walter Ego 23:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)