|WikiProject India / Jammu and Kashmir||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Textile Arts||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Napability and loft
Could someone please define or provide the proper links for "napability" and "loft"? I was unable to find out what they mean. Thanks Jimaginator 13:54, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
loft(noun), lofts (plural) 1.Attic 2.Gallery 3. an upper floor 4.the tickness of a fabric or insulated material ( as of a sleeping bag)
- In fiber, loft generally refers to the structural ratio of fiber to air. A high-loft fiber structure (such as yarn) or fabric contains more air than fiber. It is typically much thicker than low-loft' fabrics/fiber structures, in which the individual filaments are compacted. High-loft textiles can also be compressed. In other words, they're fluffy.
- High napability is less clear, but my guess is that it means that cashmere textiles either have a tendency to nap or that a nap can be produced from them with relative ease. Nap is also a textile characteristic. A textile with a nap has a soft surface on one or both sides, created by the lifting of fibers from the surface proper. (Suede is a good example of a fabric with a nap.) As a side note, nap is not the same thing as pile.
The page has a link to Kashmir Goat which is a redirect to the same page. 126.96.36.199 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The High Quality Manufacturing section seems biased to Scottish/Italian manufacturers and cites no sources.
I don't think there is any reason to keep biased arguments in the article until they can be cited. Mentioning both Asian and European industries is a good idea, in my opinion.Roots4x 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The sentence "it must be under 18.5 micrometers in diameter and be at least 3.175 centimeters long" is wrong. Iranian cashmere is about 30 micrometers, but it is cashmere. Origin and morphology of epicuticle characterized the cashmere. 30 micron goat hair is not cashmere Charles Esson (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence "it must be under 18.5 micrometers in diameter and be at least 3.175 centimeters long" is wrong. Iranian cashmere is about 30 micrometers, but it is cashmere. Origin and morphology of epicuticle characterized the cashmere.
How To Clean Cashmere Wool Clothes
I think there is something missing in the article about how cashmere wool clothes are to be treated when they need to be cleaned/washed. I doubt you can just put them into the washer without severe damage as a result, even at low temperatures. Does anyone know something about it? --Maxl 01:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The last stage of the manufacturing of a quality cashmere jumper is a good solid washing. Softens them up. I put mine in the washing machine. Needs to be a good quality one however, if the fibres are too short it will damage the item. Charles Esson (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Charles - this info has been in the article in the past, but Wiki isn't intended to be a how-to source. This article is about cashmere wool, not about where to buy it or how to take care of it. If there is enough info that could be a separate article. The same conflict comes up in a lot of pet animal articles - the how-to care for the pet - but it's not very encyclopedic. Bob98133 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
comments on stuff removed
It must be under 18.5 micrometers in diameter and at least 3.175 centimeters long.
Used the US definition, may be defined like this somewhere, if it is to be included it needs to be given along with the authority so defining.
a high moisture content allows insulation properties to change with the relative humidity in the air.
This is nonsense. It will absorb moisture just as wool does, so as the humidity changes the moisture content changes. Not sure how to weave this in yet
The finest fibers are gathered from the saddle of the Cashmere goat; most of the cashmere comes off of the sides and back, from the shoulder to the rump. It is a misconception that the finest fibers come from the neck and belly, as these parts collect the most debris.
The whole lot is rubbish and I know, we farm cashmeres.
If the goat is shorn, the fiber must be "de-haired" to remove the coarse, unusable guard hair.
Combed or shorn the raw product has to be dehaired.
environmental impact of cashmere
In China, overgrazing is causing desertification. Goats pull grasses out by the roots and change the fragile eco system. Cashmere and its luxurious qualities should be discussed in relation to its environmental cost.
See this article on Your Cheap Sweater's Real Cost http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-china-cashmere-htmlstory,0,2722049.htmlstory
In addition there is has also been cause for concern recently about the industries effect on snow leopard populations - https://docs.google.com/file/d/1-3pVRMuB_NDrilPxu2Ly9yaggW_XfLzYOIsPDAtbxNCAeVbd3st2Q4akMW_d/edit?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Clairewhitcomb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
The section restored by editor Trumbell was plagiarized directly from a copyrighted website, which was referenced. Unless Trumbell believes otherwise, this is a copyright violation. There is nothing wrong with this definition except that the wording was stolen word-for-word. Perhaps this editor could paraphrase this text or seek permission from the copyright holder to use it verbatim. In any event, please use an edit summary to indicate why plagiarized text should stay. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Quite right. If this material is word-for-word, certainly need justification for why it is not copyright, even if, (for example) the editor putting it in is the same person as the real life author of the material. Either that or paraphrase the material, as Bob98133 suggests. See WP:COPYVIO. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- The Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute consents to the use of our definition of cashmere as found on our website. The copyright notice on the page is part of standard verbage on all our pages but we do not intend to enforce it in the case of our definition which we wish to see widely used by the trade. David Trumbull (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't think you speaking as a WP user can over-ride the copyright notice, even if published by you as the CCHMI. You are of course who you say you are, but what's to stop anyone saying something similar whenever they want to avoid a copyright notice? It is surely as a matter of policy that WP does not use copyright material – I don't think it's the fear of prosecution that's relevant here. How about you changing the notice on your web-page to a GNU licence or something equivalent? Then we could use the text verbatim. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- David - that's great. If this is your web page, can you please remove the copyright notice from the cited page and replace it with a public domain or commons license? Then it would be fine to quote verbatim as long as the source is cited. Otherwise it is plagiarism. A copyright is not standard verbiage that can be ignored on your say so. Please also see WP:COI since it appears that you are promoting a web site in which you have a controlling interest. Bob98133 (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the copyright notice from that specific page of the CCMI website and reinstated the quotation. As to conflict of interest, I have been careful to not use Wikipedia to promote any organization I am associated with, but merely to supply factual information that, in my opinion, a reader of the article would want. In this case, I found the entry for cashmere had no definition of what cashmere is, surely one of the basic things one would expect to find in an encyclopedia entry. I supplied two (essential equivalent) definitions: our own and the one that we got written into U.S. law. I was careful to not say that our definition is THE definition as there may be other definitions in use in the trade or in the laws other nations. David Trumbull (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, on reviewing the history of my edits I am reminded that there was an attempt at a definition of cashmere formerly included in the entry. An editor had attempted to paraphrase the CCMI definition and the U.S. law but did not get it quite right, so on January 13, 2009 I put the CCMI definition and the U.S. law in verbatim. David Trumbull (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- David – now we have no notice on the page in question, but a copyright notice remains on the home page, which could easily be taken to cover all sub-pages. I think we need a notice on that page which specifically states that the copyright used elsewhere on the site does not extend to that page, or better still, a licence statement similar to that used for WP. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
cashmere - wool or mohair or what?
The name of this page is an oxymoron. Strictly speaking the textile known as cashmere comes from goats. Goats cannot produce wool, they produce mohair which may seem much the same to the casual observer but does not have all the beneficial properties of wool - from a sheep.
- You may be right, but you can't simply change the name/definition of a page without supplying references. A quick search reveals that "cashmere wool" is widely used both by producers and manufacturers of these products. Perhaps you could add a small referenced statement that goat hair is not really wool, provided you can find a good reference, but until then the article should not be changed to remove wool. I have reverted the text. Bob98133 (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Mohair is the hair of the angora goat, it is not cashmere. While a distinction between sheep's "wool" and goats' "hair" is sometimes made, it is also common in the trade to term cashmere as a specialty "wool." In fact, in U.S. law (15 U.S.C. 68(b)) 'The term "wool" means the fiber from the fleece of the sheep or lamb or hair of the Angora or Cashmere goat (and may include the so-called specialty fibers from the hair of the camel, alpaca, llama, and vicuna) which has never been reclaimed from any woven or felted wool product.' David Trumbull (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2013.108. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)