| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tanning (leather) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 25 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from TanningtoTanning (leather). The result of the discussion was moved. |
I did a major rewrite of this article and upgraded the modern tanning section. The ancient method section still needs upgrading. I'm removing this from the cleanup list. Jerdwyer 07:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the ancients considered tanning a job for the poor, or attaching negative connotations to it in general is hugely culture specific. To assign that attitude to a group of people dubbed 'the ancients' is plain folly. This world has birthed untold millions of cultures, and certainly many of them did not treat tanning hides with such distaste. The indigineous peoples of North America treated brain-tanning with great appreciation and respect. They were in possession of the knowledge of many scores of different tanning processes, utilizing hundreds of different plants or other naturally produced resources. It was the combination and re-combination of these processes that allowed someone with a creative urge to entice highly specific qualities out of the hides they worked.
Unfortunately I don't have first hand experience in tanning under a primitive setting, but I know lots of people who do. It is a vast field, with many many many things that aren't even touched upon in this article. I will try and find someone to edit this.
-Jared — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.35.163 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what's with that buffalo bit in the last paragraph of the 'ancient tanning' section? Looks like random vandalism or something to me. It should be elaborated on if it is true...I'm certainly not familiar with it and it appears to be some local thing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.11.116 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Now I have done a major rewrite of the page.Specially the "Modern methods of Tanning" portion. Feel free to upgrade it or pass suggestions to make it even better
urbane26 8th December 2007
I just deleted a link (that has aparenly been deleted before) to a comercial site selling cow hides, leather rugs, and other products. Had they ANY discussion of the tanning process (which could have been linked to directly) I would have perhaps seen some relevance. I also added back a link to a U.S. Government publication on home tanning of leather from a previos version of the page. For some reason somebody thought it was link spam. There are probably more good links out there to be found. Ferritecore (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of writing the entire leather making process linked through the "Leather" main page in accordance with the WP:MOS. This page is ambiguous as it lumps other leather making operations into the "tanning" operation. I acknowledge that tanneries do many things other than tan and for many years the entire leather making process was called the tanning process but I submit that this terminology is misleading and confusing for the reader and not robust enough for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. With this in mind I propose that we move some of the valuable content from this page into the relevant sections of the leather making process and use this stub as the rightful place of the "tanning" operation to avoid reader confusion. I welcome any discussion on this before I start these changes.Plugflower (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]The above articles should probably be turned into redirects to this article and anything relevant incorporated into this article. If anyone is interested, please go ahead and do it. dougweller (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curing is employed to check putrifaction of the protein substance (Collagen) because of the chance of bacterial infection due to the time lag that might occur from procuring it to processing it.
This is unclear. How is bacterial infection caused by a time lag, and what is being infected? The hide? The tanner? I don't know what it is supposed to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.64.119 (talk) 07:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of bias in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.175.52 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record there appears to have been economies of scale between whiskey makers and tanners in late medieval Ireland with the same person receiving a license for leather tanning and whiskey making. This was probably connected with the need for oak casks in both professions, although there could be another reason that I am unaware of. 213.202.140.74 (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I came looking for tanning in Wikipedia because of that reference form Silence of the Lambs about using brains to tan skins. I found that reference, sure enough. Now I'm getting more and more curious about the history of tanning, and the transition from ancient to modern methods. Can that be included?--Alphapeta (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well now, can we get back to basics, which are unexplained (at least in layman's language), and should be in the first line. I presume the object is to stop the hide rotting, and as such is a more localised form of embalming which aims to prevent the whole corpse rotting? Embalming works by making the whole corpse extremly poisonous.
Why does this process work?
Am I correct in inferring that (oak) bark is poisonous (presumably to protect the tree from insect, animal, vedgetable and bacterial attack)?
And this process removes most of what would rot and then makes the remainder poisonous ditto?
Is leather poisonous?
Could I chew, suck or eat leather, or would I be poisoned?
Could I chew, suck or eat (oak) bark, or would I be poisoned?
Why is oak bark used in horticulture to provide a plant (and therefore weed) free surface - presumably because it is poisonous?
89.168.87.17 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By now this has become a superb article, useful for teaching four or five kinds of cultural history classes. Henry Mayhew, for instance, in his pioneering work of sociology, the 1850s London Labour and the London Poor, could count on his readers knowing what the people collecting "pure," (dog's feces) from the London streets were doing. My students can't guess, and are shocked to know. Since, in several cultures, the people who handled leather were considered ritually unclean-- and perhaps we get a better idea why, after reading this-- can we add a section on leatherwork and culture? Just from memory, leatherwork was reserved for "untouchables," so to speak, in Japan and parts of India. Perhaps in Europe the Ashkenazi Jews were accepted as furriers, and as cobblers, because there was an overlap with the tanneries? BTW, my great-grandfather was a cobbler in 1890s London. The East End was full of cobblers and other Jewish leather workers. Profhum (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems to me that this article and leather production processes are pretty much covering the same thing, the transformation of raw animal skins into leather.
Looking at it, it appears the other article was an attempt to have an overview article that linked to a series of sub-articles for each step, which is seen in its guideline-inappropriate plural title. There are multiple problems with that.
Firstly, the steps aren't independently notable. This is seen by the fact that most have no articles and wouldn't qualify for them anyway due to lack of sources covering them independently.
Secondly, the sub-articles that do exist are poorly written stubs with only a couple of sources. They would be prime candidates for merging no matter what. In fact, that's really what should happen to them, as readers are far better served by having a one-stop, not-too-technical encyclopedia article than trying and aiming to be a comprehensive how-to of leather making.
Thirdly, the other article's title is just poor. As I noted, it's plural despite the article title guidelines. But more importantly, the entire process is known as "tanning", even if only the one step is the actual process of tanning. In this regard it is analogous to baking a cake, which is the name of the entire process from selecting and measuring ingredients to icing the cake, even if only the part where the food is in a hot oven is properly called baking. Readers would be best served by that same mentality here. oknazevad (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are almost six years later and there is still two almost entirely redundant articles. That has not been addressed, despite Andy's misreading of what I wrote. I'm going to be bold and tag for a merger to prompt discussion. oknazevad (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says:
"Small skins are left in this liquor for 2 days, while larger skins between 1 week and as much as 2 months. This is done to bring down the pH of collagen to a very low level of 2.8-3.0 so as to facilitate the penetration of mineral tanning agent into the skin substrate. This process is known as pickling. The salt penetrates the hide twice as fast as the acid and suppresses the swelling effect of the sudden drop of pH."
This looks like a straight contradiction. Either it soaks for as much as two months, or there is a sudden drop in pH. The last sentence seems particularly dubious. I propose to delete the uncited part of this section, i.e. from "2 months" to the end. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus there is no primary topic (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tanning → Tanning (leather) – This page was moved by @Drmies: with edit summary "moved page Tanning (leather)toTanning: moving it back onto the redirect: tanning isn't just for leather, and the more general term should be the primary. @Oknazevad: later mentioned in an edit summary "... the undiscussed move is a problem because there are other things called tanning that have nothing to do with leather production". I am also also unsure that hide tanning is the primary topic for tanning, given that Sun tanning is popularly known as "tanning" and that article is much more popular [1]. My proposal is to create a disambiguation page at Tanning. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
