Talk:Bambu (rolling papers)/Archive 1

Don't break Wiki Rules Please
i don't think this should be speedied. afd if necessary, but it is a brand of rolling papers found in every store in the US. also the cheech and chong album Big Bambu named after these papers. needs a rewrite to be a good stub, but no reason to speedy it. --Heah (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * AD - Needs Rewrite or removal** Unfortunately the son of Nancy (owner of Bambu who lives in Long Island NY) keeps trying to use WIKI to promote their family's brand. Everything has been tried to stop them, but they just keep putting up promotional text and using various IP's to try hide who they are. T--ArnaudMS (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)he article needs a Neutral write up and the promo text has to be removed.  There are two or three of us fighting against the Bambu employees who keep rewritting our text and posting promotional information and illegal images / false text.  In short,  Wiki staff has to get involved and turn this stub back into a NEUTRAL STUB, (not an Ad).

FYI, Bambu is not even in the top 10 selling brands according to www.tobonline.com ! They are certainly not available in any store where I live in California and seem to be popular only on their home turf in the NY area. I have not seen them in Chicago other then 1 head shop, but certainly not at any real tobacconist. Job, EZ Wider, Zig Zag, Juicy, seem to rule the market at stores I go to. I write for pubs so I do make a point to visit many stores when I am in a town. Sorry, the truth hurts but it is still the truth.... --Mrtobacco 11:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * REWRITE**it's an ad! lvrby

ya know
i see all this hubbub on the talk page about the pov and stuff, but after removing the one sentence it looks fine to me. i think that the advertisement template is unnecessary. your thoughts? Joeyramoney 16:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't break Wiki Rules Please
It is against wiki rules for anyone except an admin to remove; template:bias template:advertisement

I know this might frustrate you, but please wait for Wiki staff to make a decision on this page before they remove the tags.


 * No, those are not wiki rules at all. anyone who wants to is entitled to remove such tags provided the bias has been fixed, or it is decided on the talk page that the tags are unneeded.  Please engage in discussion and if you have problems with the article, bring the specific problems here to the talk page, where we'd love to discuss it with you.  i'm going to work on the article a bit and take down the tags when i'm done; for the most part, it isn't an ad at all, but the page needs some work.  -- he  ah  18:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the article for stylistic and bias concerns. it should all be good.  please don't place pictures willy-nilly all over the page; it doesn't look very good.  an article this small has no room for half a dozen pictures.  a link to that spanish newspaper article would be helpful, mr tobacco; putting a picture of the newspaper article in this article on wikipedia is not how we do things here.  -- he  ah  18:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Used your changes to make further ones, I really don't want the tags down or the discussion on making the page correct will also end :( --Mrtobacco 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't make further changes, you reverted to a previous version with all the silly pictures and etc. intact! bring your problems here, and then we can discuss.  referencing the cheech and chong album, for instance, is not bias or advertising!  until you tell us what problems you apparently still have, they can't be fixed, and you haven't done this.  if you want to put the tags back up fine, but please LEAVE THIS VERSION for now so we can discuss it.-- he  ah  19:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That isn't what I did! What happened is you and I were editing at the same time and thus the images went up for only a moment. Check the text now it should be OK? --Mrtobacco 19:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * hmm, i dunno what happened. anyways it's my version that's up now . . .  Like i said, if you want to put the tags back up go for it, but if you have problems with the article still please bring them here so we can fix them.  personally i'm not sure what objections you would still have . . . -- he  ah  19:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting annoyed with these Bambu employees who keep changing this page..
Just to prove that they are lying as usual, here is a link to show you that Bambu is sold in Spain (Duh) http://www.papeldefumar.com

Bambu is made by Miquel Y Costas and they sell it themselves in Europe. It does contain wood & esparto and therefore does come under "fire" in the recent criminal case against Miquel Y Costas.

Please don't remove the truth or modify posts to try and cover up the criminal investigation of the producer and European seller of Bambu papers. The public has a right to know.

Check with Mr Tobacco - that article is right (I can read spanish)
The reverts are certainly necessary. There is fragrant vandalism going on by that user above using various AKA's. As a medical marijuana user I am very offended to find out that the papers I used to use were carcinogenic. That information is very important to me and my user-group.

I can see why that guy who 'may' work for Bambu or that paper manufacturer would try desperately to delete it and cover it up. However they should be ashamed of themselves. They know that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out there like myself - and they are peddling cancer-causing papers on people that have cancer?

if there is a hell, they will certainly be sent there.

--66.38.129.154 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bambu Origins (in dispute)
Bambu has been a company in existance since 1764, and has been very well documented. this article needs serious wiki clean up, and looks like advertising and slander in one article.

- Hi can you please sign your post and explain the documentation. Has the company been in existance or just the brand? The company itself seems to have been formed in the 1980's so please explain and thanks!

Nahome (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

- The brand/trademark has been in existence in Spain since 1764. In the 1800's the Company, owned buy Spanish paper makers went through financial difficulties and was sold to Moorish Arabs from southwest Spain, The R. Abad Santonja group/family.. They printed their name on the papers ( http://www.rollingpapers.net/Bambu/c02_2c1.jpg) ... The business about the 1920's was when the brand was first exported to the United States for sale here. In the early 1980's the Spanish company which was apart of a larger paper conglomerate making numerous forms of stationary, paper, parchment etc. went bankrupt and the distributors in the United States were able to buy the brand and trademark worldwide and restructured the business model and manufacturing to suit modern demand. The paper was still made to the same specifications as older papers along with the all natural glue.. Understand that for many generations paper "glue" was made with a pig fat byproduct, and Bambu being the only natural plant glue for generations... This is why it is everywhere in the Caribbean, because Rastafarian culture prohibits consumption of meat. I am a rolling paper collector and have Bambu papers from the That range from today, to the 80s, 50s to almost 100 years old.. All of them have indicated a Brand establishment of 1764. Do I have documentation from the Bureau of Trademark Registration from Madrid, no.. But all I can say is that it has been widely accepted, and thoroughly researched by the Japanese firm Shoko Research that this is true. As well the company for as long as anyone can remember printed since 1764 date.

Hope this helps clear things up Nahome

All the best,

Arnaud — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnaudMS (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Arnaud, Please post references for every statement you put in the article and then it will be seen as fact and not removed. If you need help using Refernce templates just click the Help link on the left side of this page.   If you don't have any evidence that a product was being sold at a certain date, and the only evidence that I can find is a trademark certificate in 1921 then that is the earliest verifiable date.  Please post the earliest date you can show verification for.   Also, even if a brand was established in 1921 that does not mean that a company was established in 1921. To be listed on the oldest companies in the world it is supposed to be an ongoing company - not just a brand name.  Bambu should be listed as an old trademark - not a company, unless the original company dates back to 1921 or 1764 which the references show it does not.  Nahome (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Arnaud I did some more research and found that the earliest documented use of BAMBU was in 1908. According to the Madrid trademark office the first ever Bambu application was filed in 1908 with a date of first use of March 1908:

TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860

The book that you quoted as saying Bambu was launched in 1764 states that they received this information from Bambu Sales Inc - thus it could be a self-induced date. Eg - a company tells the writer that the brand was launched in 1764, than the writer puts this in his book - then that company cites that very book as proof that the brand was launched in 1764!! The only factual evidence I can find says 1908 and I think that date should stand until someone gives factual evidence otherwise. Let's stick to facts. Nahome (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry one other thing that might help clear up the date mess - It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu). Thus they put 1764 on all of the papers they made.  That date is on Marfil and many other packs in my collection.  Then when the Bambu brand was sold and the factory closed, it seems the new brand owner is just using 1764 as part of the original Alcoy Branding.  They always said ALCOY 1764 on the old packs.  Thus I hope this ends your confusion.  1764 seems to be the original factory incorporation date and 1908 is the actual brand launch date.   Long live facts and Bambu!   When the page is unprotected I hope you will be the one to post this interesting tidbit and hope we can all get along Nahome (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Any consensus on the above proposed change? The only actual hard facts that I can find support it.  Please post any information that supports other positions and thanks!  Nahome (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there an actual document or web reference for the original trademark registration? The are multiple books/sites/verifiable sources which have the est. Date at 1776. Company, Brand--- it seems there whenever a company changes ownership the factory/manufacturing process changes and the trademarks piggyback upon one another. If this is the case, then almost every companies est. date can be drawn into question and or re-written. A blaring example would be breweries which have been bought and sold and moved from production facility for hundreds of years. The most important question would be if continuity of production along with the location of production is the only factor in trademark criteria, which it most certainly is not. I suggest further looking into the hundreds of companies which are on the oldest company list that do not even have a wiki page, and no proof of est. date... So far many information regarding dates by user Nahome have been questionable. First it was 1703, now there moving back to 1764. The Established in 1921, now 1908. I suggest you further thoroughly check your facts before impulsively changing dates. This should be sufficient for wikipedia.--ArnaudMS (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC):
 * Arnaud you clearly work for the company, you keep saying things that have absolutely nothing to do with facts and references. Please only give references. I had some dates wrong, but then did RESEARCH to correct them.   All you give is stories and "everyone knows".  I am sorry but "everyone does not know".  We need references and research.  The only documented dates are 1921 in the USA and 1908 in Europe (Spain).  Unless you give actual references that are NOT FROM THE COMPANY GIVING DATES TO A WRITER AND THEN RELYING UPON THAT DATE, these dates are the only 3rd party actual dates that exist and they should be lived with.   PLEASE PROVIDE ACTUAL HARD EVIDENCE OR REFERENCES - OTHERWISE USE THE ONES THAT I HAVE FOUND.  Nahome (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish.. I am a collector of all papers and Bambu user.. I see your edits are clearly geared towards boosting companies like Juicy Jay with fictitious facts ( i see you AC neilsen reference which only links to the website of the company).. As well your research is anything but factual. I am merely protecting a brand which I see is being slandered by someone who obviously has an agenda against it because they work for a competitive brand. Question is who are you. --ArnaudMS (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The date in the first sentance of the article should be changed to 1908. There are no actual references other than ones given by or through the company (or Arnaud) to support 1764. In fact when I did some research this is what I found. I did some more research and found that the earliest documented use of BAMBU was in 1908. According to the Madrid trademark office the first ever Bambu application was filed in 1908 with a date of first use of March 1908:

TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860

The book that Arnaud quoted as saying Bambu was launched in 1764 states that they received this information from Bambu Sales Inc - thus it could be a self-induced date. Eg - a company tells the writer that the brand was launched in 1764, than the writer puts this in his book - then that company cites that very book as proof that the brand was launched in 1764!! The only factual evidence I can find says 1908 and I think that date should stand until someone gives factual evidence otherwise. Let's stick to facts. Nahome (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay ✅. Would you be able to use a proper citation template for that reference? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

After researching myself, I have found zero proof from the Madrid trademark office that this exists.. TM Office: Oficina Española de Patentes y Marcas TradeMark Name: BAMBU Application Number: M0014860 Registration Office Code: ES Kind of IPR: Application Date: 1908-03-31 Registration Number: M0014860.. How could a "line of text" ever pass as a reference. .. In fact, they don't even have trademark registration records which date back as far as brands have existed in the country.. The Bambu establishment date of 1764 has been verified in books along with independent research by the firm who came up with list of the world oldest companies in Japan. After seeing all of the date flip flops and now a fabricated trademark registration from user Nahome, how can any of this users "research" be passed as factual. --ArnaudMS (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Arnaud and everyone, you can easily find the Bambu marks I referenced using this link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html or this one works a bit easier: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/advancedSearch.html   Please search on your own and you'll see the only verifiable facts. I don't know how to post the correct template as you can't direct link to the results, but you'll see them :)  Nahome (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

just click the links for the search or advanced search and you'll find the marks easily. That 1908 is the oldest I could find. Nahome (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask that the Page Protect be extended for 30 days. I fear a certain user is going to attack the page as soon as the Protect expires with more non-referenced promo text :(  Nahome (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did more research on the History of Bamboo trade. Numerous articles show there was no bamboo wood in Spain in 1764. It wasn't until the industrial revolution of the early 1900's that Steamships began carrying bamboo from Asia to Europe. In 1764 bamboo would have had to be loaded on wooden sailing ships and sailed from Asia to Spain - then hauled by horses high up into the mountains of Alcoy just to be used as cigarette paper. That did not occur and is an impossibility. Instead, with the industrial revoution in full bloom bamboo was sent by steamship to Europe and then by train to Alcoy. Even that would have proved expensive and difficult, which is likely why they stopped using bamboo for Bambu brand papers and switched to conventional woods instead. However the 1764 date is clearly an impossibility. See; Farrelly, David (1984). The Book of Bamboo. Sierra Club Books. ISBN 087156825X. Nahome (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed unsourced tendentious statements
I came over from the Editor Assistance Request noticeboard originally to reformat the references on this page so they showed properly. However, I noticed some assertions on the page: 1. Bambu claims that its papers are sundried but 2. Its Spanish provider has no sun-drying facilities; 3. Bambu papers were formerly flavored with saccharin, 4. which is banned by an FDA order.

When I checked the sources given in the references, 1 and 2 were not suppported by the linked sites. The Bambu page makes no claim the papers are sundried and the page for the Spanish manufacturer makes no reference I could find to such facilities or the lack thereof. The only source I could find for the assertion that Bambu papers were flavored with saccharin was an article in Cannabis Culture magazine, which may not be WP:RS, and a purported photograph of a letter from Bambu to its distributors uploaded various places here, also a RS problem. The FDA ruling, which does appear to say that rolling papers with any flavoring other than menthol are not permitted, has two problems. First. it is a primary source, and we need a reliably sourced secondary such as a newspaper article explaining its context, import and enforcement. Secondly, it isn't a relevant statement on this page unless someone finds better sourcing for the assertion that Bambu papers had menthol flavoring. I am not opposed to the reinsertion of this material with references to new sources compliant with WP:RS and phrased so as to meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE standards. In the meantime, I have deleted these sentences from the page as unsourced. A "citation needed" tag would not have been adequate because the material appears negative and implies misrepresentations or misconduct by the company, and therefore would need to be strongly sourced. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone has now reverted my edit to reinclude the completely unsourced statements about sundrying and saccharine. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon I found this link here [] that substantiates the Saccharin - check the letter from the company itself on that page http://www.rollingpapers.net/Bambu/Bambu-saccharin.gif . Please re-insert the appropriate text. I agree 100% with the sundrying that part should be left out entirely, please help to keep it out as some other users keep reinserting it and other promo text. Nahome (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nahome, I am really not sure rollingpapers.net is WP:RS for this kind oif assertion--and that letter, which is all over Wikipedia and the web, is a primary source of unknown provenance. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked on the waybackmachine, the letter appears to be entirely genuine and the sundried remarks were once on the Bambu site. I guess they removed them which makes them appropriate to be removed from this page.  More importantly, how do we stop ad-text from flooding the page? Nahome (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all of your help. Turns out there has been a book written on the history of Bambu which clearly states it was made in 1907 by Rafael Abad Santonja. The name of the book is EL BAMBÚ, LA MARCA Y LES BAMBUNERES, and further there are articles by the University of Barcelona, department of History that also state 1907.   I don't think there can be any more dispute - really. The links and references have been added to the article. Nahome (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up
After doing some reading and reviewing sites from other collectors I have gone through facts on company and its origins. Pay Pay was never produced by R. Abad, it was by Pascual Ivorra Carbonell in 1910 for one. If you only use the trademark registration as a means of company beginnings, this is where the major brands stack up: Smoking Paper 1923-11-03 Bambu 1908-03-23 Zig Zag 1908-05-13 Abadie 1962-08-11 PAY-PAY 1910-01-11 JOB 1909-06-15 **This would make Bambu the oldest cigarette trademark in the world** (which I know it is not) This is after using the European Trademark website Nahome linked to link: http://tmview.europa.eu/tmview/welcome.html. Even companies like Rizla do not have trademark registrations before the 1950's! There is a fine line that needs to be understood before questioning brand origins. throughout history there are papermaking firms (which manufacture source, and produced not only raw paper for many years, but numerous brands) paper-making cartels which were compilations of firms that joined for economical reasons an manufacturing benefits and just an actual Brand, which is a name that represents a product. The Establishment date of 1764 when the original firm traces its manufacturing origins of paper. The actual "paper" was produced since then, yet the brand name did not come to signify the product until many years later. I think this current version makes much more sense ( although I know there will be MANY changes, as I can see this page seems to change every 5 minutes) link: http://www.helsinki.fi/iehc2006/papers1/Gutierrez.pdf Happy New Year --ArnaudMS (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually if you do a search for the US Rizla mark you will see this; First Use Anywhere: 12/27/1881, First Use In Commerce:  12/27/1881.  The search you are doing above is incorrect - you have to go regional like we did with Spain and search from there. Again if you have evidence of a Bambu (we are talking about Bambu not Rizla) mark prior to 1907 please reference it so that we can amend the date in the article - but we do need a reference not just your opinion. Nahome (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ArnaudMS / IP User / Bambu Promoter, the key difference is that you are citing registrations in Spain - but moreover there was an entire book written on the history of Bambu which we have cited above as well as articles written by the University of Barcelona Department of History. Further, Rafael Abad Sontoja was not alive in 1764 - he would have been the oldest  man ever to exist!  We are not here to discuss your competitors, we only want to stick to the facts.  You must present actual factual evidence that your brand existed in 1764 or else we must go with the FACTS.  All references show 1907 / 1908.  You have not presented a shred of evidence that your brand Bambu existed in 1764.  Please present ACTUAL REFERENCES NOT JUST YOUR OPINION.  Nahome (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not a promoted, I am simply bettering/ reorganizing the article which I see has been going through extensive edit-re editiing. This layout it more clean cut, and has actual sections unlike anything you have brought up.. The university of Barcelona articles you have cited is what I am using as the reference Miguel Gutiérrez-Poch is the professor who wrote these! I translated the two you gave, and found one of them (which was already translated) that I linked above. I am not promoting the brand, just trying to set the facts strait, as you are trying to do.. But the format this article has been in is unorganized, period. I reference everything which was added. Until I read the "bambu book" you reference I will be unable to reference things specifically about that.. Can you show me a shread of evidence that Bamboo the plant is the origins of Bambu the brands name? I have been unable to see that, I the articles you have posted, collectors, and tried to call the office but they were very curt with me and were interested in placing an order not clarifying Historical aspects of brand.. Have you read the articles you have reference? Use bablefish and you can read them all easily. Best, --ArnaudMS (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Cmon ArnaudMS / IP User / Bambu Promoter / Lostsociety, you have written some very clear posts with brand information such as above when you wrote Bambu has been a company in existance since 1764, and has been very well documented. this article needs serious wiki clean up, and looks like advertising and slander in one article. - yet you can't provide any of this well documented information?


 * Then you wrote a long post (way above) about how the company was formed by moorish Arabs etc.. - where did you get this information?  You are coming across as a clear promoter for Bambu and I again politely ask you to please stop putting up your promo text without references.  Give one good reference that your brand Bambu is from 1764 (which would make the inventor R Abad Sonjoja around 200 years old when he died). Nahome (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ArnaudMS since you have a lot of knowledge of Bambu, can you tell us more about what transpired with it's history and bankruptcy. I searched for some of the keywords from your post and found this interesting reference: http://openjurist.org/773/f2d/925/adams-apple-distributing-company-v-papeleras-reunidas-sa. It says Adams Apple Distributing company and the former Bambu factory had a lawsuit over something relating to Bambu sales in the USA. Then the Bambu factory lost and got hit with a 1.4million dollar judgement, then went into bankruptcy and Adams Apple Distributing company put liens on the Bambu mark? The mark history we see on the USPTO link shown in the Wiki article says liens by Republic Tobacco. Did the Long Island company purchase the trademark from the bankruptcy court? Please give us more information on this very interesting background. Perhaps it should be included in the article if it's relevant to the transition of the brand. Nahome (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Im dont know about the history of the U.S. company persay, just about R. Abad (historical family in southern spain) became Papeleras reunidas. I have never heard of "adams apple". Though the judgement is against PR, not Bambu from what you posted. I assume the company can clarify this, but as I said before-- I called the office and an elderly woman wasn't interested in discussing anything but orders.. You can try and see if they will talk to you. Thanks for posting the info from University of Barcelona, was news to me and very helpful. As well never knew there was a book on Bambu.--ArnaudMS (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Arnaud I see you are still trying to help your/the Bambu brand out by trying to get the part about them admitting they use Saccharin removed by saying they no longer make that product. I don't see any reference to them not making the product, is this more inside information that you have? Can you provide a link / reference that they stopped making the product?  When I search online I see it for sale in many places. Woodstock, or even their own Bambu.com site lists them for sale Bambu.com Flavored papers for sale or moreover just google it and you get dozens of places actively selling the product.  Nahome (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

from my understanding Flavored rolling papers were banned by the FDA, but any exiting stock is still allowed to be sold, then no more production.. I also read it on this site This was linked here a while ago but someone took it down. and I when I was on Bambu.com I did not see them anywhere on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnaudMS (talk • contribs) 19:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "from my understanding" is not a reference, and they are still even for sale on the Bambu.com site. I provided the link above.  Moreover they are for sale on dozens of other sites if you would just check before replying please. Also since you seem to know a lot of inside information are they supposedly discontinued worldwide or just in the USA? Nahome (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

, (FDA), (FDA). (rolling paper warehouse) This was already on the page and has since been deleted.. There's no "inside" info Nahome. you think there's a conspiracy or something it seems like.. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is what made it illegal for usage with Tobacco. I see in Convenience Store News they discuss the Ban being contested by companies which rely heavily on Flavored tobacco products, HBI, owner of Juicy Jay.. I do not know where that stands, but this lawyer's page says that the flavored paper's ban has been upheld and the FDA has won. It seems that the link which you provided to Bambu's website is an out dated "old" page.. If you go to their man page you can not get to any Flavored Papers to buy through them. I think they have a 3rd party operate their online sales because it redirects me to a different site when I try and buy. Therefor I think they are no-longer made by the business, and never should have in the first place.--ArnaudMS (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ArnaudMS/IPuser/Lostsociety your post doesn't make sense and doesn't say why it should be removed. The links you provided still show the product for sale Bambu Flavored papers for sale. However even if it wasn't currently for sale, if it was ever made it should/could be listed here on Wiki. We are not about "what's current", we are a Wikipedia! We are not your brand promotion service, most pages here give a lot of history of products, people and things.  If you want a brand promotion service, stay with paid for promotion services. Nahome (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Full protection
I have protected this page to prevent continued edit-warring. Can we please decide here what we want the article to say? --John (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should say facts that are supported by references not opinion (and not "everyone knows that..." falsifacts). I think the current version is well referenced and welcome any changes that come with solid non-company references Nahome (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I will unprotect this page if and when the two main protagonists here can agree not to edit war. --John (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you won't unprotect this page for many months till the IP Warriors and Sock Puppets have called it quits. Nahome (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Nahome, as you can see above, "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu). Thus they put 1764 on all of the papers they made. That date is on Marfil and many other packs in my collection. Then when the Bambu brand was sold and the factory closed, it seems the new brand owner is just using 1764 as part of the original Alcoy Branding." As I can see on the List of oldest companies talk page, the qualifications for being on this list is that, "a company is as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date." You can see this specifically on the Kikkoman section of the Talk page for oldest companies. Therefor, most if not all of the businesses on this list are companies which trace their establishment date to the earliest entity of the business. All of this trademark registration non-sense perpetuated by this user is clearly not the logic this article has been found upon. Sincerely, and thanks for you time.--151.205.172.251 (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Sockpuppet, we need a reference (R E F E R E N C E) for the 1764 date that you are so insistent upon. We have all well proven that the valid date is 1907/1908, unless the University of Barcelona Department of History is also just trying to slander your brand Bambu?  Maybe the book cited above was also written to slander your brand Bambu?  Maybe the fact that the inventor of the brand wasn't alive in 1764 (He was born in 1851 and died in 1911 as per this verifiable This Reference) is not true because, well because, I can't think of a reason for that but regardless please give all of us here on Wiki a REFERENCE that counters what the University of Barcelona and other factual references including the trademark have shown. Please don't put up  more long posts - just give us an acceptable third party REFERENCE please!  I'll write a nice apology on all of your 5 user pages if you could just prove us all wrong. Nahome (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet - please please listen, other admins have warned you about needing references. In fact here is what they told you at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArnaudMS#re:_Bambu_II

They tried to help you and explained:


 * Hello again - thanks for the message. I looked at the edit, and it's clearly referenced that the trademark was registered in 1908. If there is more information, backed by verifiable, reliable sources, that you would like to insert, make a request to add it by placing editprotected on the talk page.


 * The 'verifiable and reliable sources' part seems to be the problem here. We can't just take the company's word that they were established in 1776 or 1813 or whenever they say it was - it has to be published in some kind of independent publication (book, newspaper, magazine, etc) over which Bambu has no influence. Nahome has already pointed that out to you on the article talk page, and she's right.


 * There are multiple people now who have told you this. Neither you nor the Bambu company own the article. Find a publication not influenced by Bambu, so you can use and cite that information. If you can't do that, please stop plastering the user talk pages of multiple editors complaining about a contribution that is appropriately referenced and verified. If you continue to edit war after the protection on the article is lifted, it could lead to a block for disruption.


 * ArnaudMS, I don't know how many times I can tell you that we need references. That edit is referenced with a record number and application number in the registration book of an independent nation, that of Spain. If you can provide a reference that contradicts this one, by all means, add it. If not, leave it alone.


 * You're going down the road toward being labelled a tendentious editor. The other editors on this article (and I'm not one of them, I'm here because you were upset I deleted a non-free image) are trying to work with you. However, it seems like you aren't listening. We've shown you our rules and policies, we've asked you to abide by those rules, and by all indications you don't want to abide by Wikipedia rules and policies. I hope you take my advice to heart: read and understand and edit by our policies, or you could be blocked for disruption.

But still you persist in not posting any references - and using Sockpuppets to boot :(   Please stop this edit war by posting REFERENCES as explained above and thank you!  Nahome (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please post a reference as to how the Bambu brand traces its origins back to Bamboo the tree? As I have said before, there is no where I can see any indication of this.. If this is the case, any reference to "Bamboo" being in Spain should be removed from the page. As said by user above, also need more clarification on worlds oldest companies. If a company is as old as its oldest business entity then how is Bambu not on the page? Because that seems to be the criteria for the other business on oldest companies page.. As user namome states above, "It seems 1764 is the date that the original factory was incorporated in Alcoy (the factory that much later produced Bambu)." In the older rolling papers (pre the current owner 1980's) there is an establishment dat of 1764, therefore it is not "the current owner" who claims this date... And as Nahome states, on the other paper packs in "her collection" they use the same date of 1764... Can this please be adresss.. Otherwise, a much improved article with sections. --ArnaudMS (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet, I know you are trying to distract us from asking again - but again we are going to ask you for a REFERENCE for the 1764 date you insist on trying to post. Please give us a reference for 1764 backed by verifiable, reliable sources.  Ideally you wouldn't post anything else until you give us all that reference.  Do you have any actual reference for it? Nahome (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu Image
What happened with all the Bambu Images which were on this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.21.67 (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu Bankruptcy
Hi Cliff and thank you for editing Bambu rolling papers. I wasn't sure if that court finding I put up was worth posting. It seemed pretty signifcant to me as it would be a very significant event in a brand's history to be sued into bankruptcy. It also finally explained why the brand was sold to a new owner and moved to a new factory for outsource production. I completely respect your opinion but wanted to know why you beleive it's not significant enough to be included in that article. I am a regular contributor and need to learn more about Wiki before I make that same mistake again on another article later. Thanks and happy Wiki'ing!  Nahome  04:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC) BTW the page is under Sockpuppet attack again.  Nahome  04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahome (talk • contribs)

Let's talk about Bambu translating to Bamboo
OK, I see that the Bambu sockpuppets attacked to say that the paper was never made from Bamboo. Bambu translates to Bamboo. Bambu is made in Spain where Bambu means Bamboo. Now it is perfectly logical and normal for the product to simply be named after Bamboo, but not actually made from it. If you could just provide a reference as such, I will gladly remove the reference to the paper being made from Bamboo entirely. Let's talk about it, we all want this article to be factual and accurate. If we are assuming incorrectly just let us know but please provide a reference or a solid statement. Rolling papers are commonly made from wood according to the internet. So, if a paper was called Bambu (a type of wood) you could understand why we would all be confused. Please clarify this for us so we can correct the article and thank you for discussing it with us!  Nahome  15:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why when you want  this on the page, its unnecessary to confirm it by verifiable link and just your an assumption sentence and an amazon.com link. However for someone to disprove your statement it needs to be verified by a website? Your statement is bold as assumptive, with zero reference from any website including the companies. You should listen to your own advice and reference anything on this page before you make statements.. So instead of asking anyone to clarify this to you, why don't you clarify this to us. Show one reference of Bambu cigarette paper being made from Bamboo the tree and then place your statement back there.


 * Arnaud, please sign your statements on talk pages. I noted from the diff that you edited the talk page, deleting portions of comments. There is almost never a justification in deleting content from talk pages, please explain.
 * I would also like to say in passing that of the fifty or so Wikipedia pages I watch, this is by far the most tendentious and unprofessional in the constant squabbling and mutual reversion (all of this despite the various levels of protection). Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jon can you please restore the comments (already restored now). The Bambu promoters have a goal, whatever the comments are they must be contrary to the promotional goal. Jon how do you feel about my question above? If a product is called Bamboo/Bambu do we need to reference that it's made of Bamboo/Bambu? I'm very confused.  Nahome  16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bambu and Carcinogen Charge
Ah, I found what they were trying to bury and remove. In this previous version, there was text and a link about them being charged with using illegal carcinogens in their paper. Wow, I can understand why they want this hidden. Now that Arnaud caused this to be re-noticed I'm inclined to restore the information to the article unless other actual editors (not Sockpuppets) feel it should not be part of the article. It seems very newsworthy to me and has references. Please editors, weigh in here and thank you.  Nahome  16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC) arch