Talk:Latex

Defense Function

I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no support for other functions. Plants definitely move nutrients through latex. I suspect what the quoted author meant was that there is no evidence for latex outperforming more traditional vasculature in non-defensive roles. -98.114.12.107 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

Where does the name latex come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be changing the etymology of the word to acknowledge roots in latin, rather than spanish. The article cited does attribute the origin to the spanish for milk, leche, but it is much more similar to the latin lac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.190.199 (talk) 19:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tree sap

I happened across this website. Anyone know the truth? --Pascal666 06:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be moved to a Natural latex article, to separate out the material that is made from it, and the synthetic latex

Could someone who knows also consider the similarity to Tree sap

Agreed. Ie: Maple syrup.

~ender 2006-11-19 13:17:PM MST

Could someone who knows synthetic latex production add something to this article about how it is produced, and its sources? Is it still derived from tree sap? Mycroft007 15:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

India rubber

What is India rubber? It doesn't have an entry and could do with one. Cutler 08:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Technical only - Latex as CLOTHING

This article has NOTHING about the mention of latex as a clothing item, which is pretty bloody ridiculous. Needs a lot of improvement.
--Chaosfeary 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate Picture

Looks like there's an edit war going on right now. Someone inserted a picture of a model in the shower with exposed breasts and black plastic (latex, we assume) gloves. Several people have edited it out, and several have edited it back in. The picture is unnecessary and does not add to the article and thus is inappropriate (both due to social moors and lack of content). If you insist on adding a picture, why not find a picture of a latex tree being tapped, or the sap being processed into latex? That would be educational. If you love the current picture so much, go add it to the BSDM clothing page or whatnot where it is more appropriate. -65.184.55.76 (65.184.55.76|contribs)

I am pretty sure this IP is the same person as the other two.

• Special:Contributions/208.176.61.219 (talk) (I left a comment)
• Special:Contributions/65.184.55.76 (talk) (I and another user left a comment here)
• Special:Contributions/69.216.131.22 (talk)

Anyway "social moors"/"inappropriate" is not applicable. Please read WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors.

This picture is just as educational, it's not educational in the context you would personally like. --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as soon as a more educational one is found, we'll of course be using that, right?  ;) There's very little latex to be seen in the picture anyway. Mostly skin. I have no problems with sexy images but it's more of a "woman with fake boobs" picture than a "woman in latex" picture. -Kasreyn 18:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not the same person, and I'd log in if I could remember my user name and password. Its not important.

While looking through the history I found that a picture like I suggested above was already present in the article but edited out. I am going to revert the page to that point in its history. If you sincerely desire to change it back, discuss it here first and tell me why you think that the female model image is more appropriate than an image of a tree being tapped for its sap.

BTW, MSK, You've already violated the 3 reversions rule.

For any newcomers, the picture of the latex tree has been on the page for at least two months, until NSmith24 decided to edit it out today for an image of a female (boob fetish?). -65.184.55.76

I found the page with the female image added in again, and I have removed it. I'm not a frequent editor of articles here, is there an appropriate authority to contact regarding abusive editing? NSmith seems to have a history of this according to his talk page, and this needs to be put to a stop.199.248.185.2 12:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex as clothing is an important application of the product. That being said, the image in question could comfortably be replaced with another one. If anyone would like to propose an alternative image, bearing in mind that this one is of pretty good quality, I'd like to see it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah just a bit too much silicon (lol) ;) But better than no picture at all - I will have a look around. --Mistress Selina Kyle 05:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored, however we can excersize a bit of restraint when it comes to pictures that do not add to the article at all. I'm sure there are plenty of pictures out there with people wearing full latex body suits. The current picture that keeps being edited in shows very little latex and gives latex a representation that it's merely used for sexual purposes. --DaiTengu 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have actually said on this page already I'm trying to get hold of a non-copyrighted/free to use on WP image to use in the article at the moment... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 03:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a request in to someone asking for permission to use a picture, It'd be nice if we could hold off on the editing war until the picture is changed. Even you have to admit that the current picture is a very poor representation of latex.--DaiTengu 03:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just removed the myth-busters picture. Yes, we wouldn't offend anyone, yes, we are at least sure it was latex, yes it demonstrates latex as clothing. But we can't stretch fair use that far, if you'll pardon the pun. The irony is that the other one has a dubious copyright claim that is probably false, but this one we know we can't use. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put in a request to mythbusters that they release the photo for use on Wikipedia. Themindset 17:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that, having had, erm, experience of latex wear, that model is not wearing latex, she's only wearing rubber. Dan100 (Talk) 23:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That is, the model under a stream of water isn't wearing latex. The Mythbusters guys are. Dan100 (Talk) 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

External links

Yeah, I'm a total jackbooted fascist when it comes to what I desire in external links. Of course, Wikipedia:External links is guideline not policy so talking is good. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with them, what bit are you referring to?

They're very relevant links, and now the article has NO links.... :( --Mistress Selina Kyle 06:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to thier subject matter, so it's not about relevence for me. However, several of them are commercial, and unless we have a really compelling reason to violate a guideline, we shouldn't.
There is also the question of proportional representation. We now have for external links for only one aspect of latex, and none for all the others.
I'd have prefered a bit more talking to a full revert. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry, habit I guess. not used to editors being so polite ;)

people round here so far tend to use politeness as an excuse to hide behind but revert and shout at others whenever they feel like it ~mutters~ >:| Um, anyway...

• Proportional: If you can find websites about the technical process of extracting latex go ahead... I have had a look around and can't find anything ... :/ Presumably it's all done by hand somewhere.. In the meantime best to have links for the aspect we *do* know about, I think..
• Mm, some parts of the site are commercial, but the actual pages linked to themselves are not commercial, I made sure of that - They have links on them to separate commercial bits, but nowhere on the linked page it is it actually offering to sell things. *Shrug*

I dunno, looking forward to your reply. it really is nice actually to have a real debate rather than people just saying "I POSTED ON THE TALK PAGE NOW IM GOING TO CARRY ON REVERTING YOU MERCILESSLY".. people keep using that as an excuse ive found -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle 07:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of this debate, I'd like to express the fact that Latex is a sex-neutral substance, and that over-representing its sexual uses is inappropriate. Many many substances are used in some form of sex act, are going to fill up articles like Satin, Leather, Rope, etc. with all kinds of links regarding their sexual/fashion applications? That would seem quite un-encyclopedic. Perhaps a sexwiki would be more appropriate for that kind of pervasively sexually-obsessed content. ( PS - please do not label edits that you don't agree with as vandalism. ) Themindset 19:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest creating an article called Latex clothing and perhaps one called Latex fetishism, these would be great articles in which to expand upon the sexual nature of latex. Themindset 19:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex is already a type of clothing. There is no reason to relegate this information to a separate article other than the censorship you seem to be pushing for. The article is already very short, there is no reason to delete all this content just because you don't agree with it. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)}

Actually, it seems that all the editors disagree with it. You have now reverted the article 4 times. Stop labeling our edits as vandalism, it's rather insulting. Themindset 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You and a friend (It seems very likely "Noisy" is the anonymous editor that was blanking bits of the article in the same manner) disagree with it.

The fact is that the material is commonly used by clothing and the fact that there are whole magazines and many online shops dedicated to the stuff makes it very notable indeed - Please stop trying to censor the article of "sex-related" stuff just because of your own POV/beliefs. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The only "belief" I have is that I believe this kind of sex-obsessed content to be unencyclopedic. Since there is so much culture around latex clothing, wouldn't that qualify it for the creation of its own article? I again encourage you to create a Latex clothing article and elaborate there. Themindset 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing unencyclopedic about sex when it's dealt with in a neutral manner the same as any other article - Just because a subject's partly do to with sex doesn't make it any less suitable for Wikipedia. Haven't you seen some of the huge articles around on the subject of things like fellatio? Wikipedia is for *any notable information*... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Precisely, that would be an appropriate article to discuss felatio. But video cameras are used to video-tape fellatio, does that mean that the article about video cameras should have detailed info about how they're used to record the act of fellatio? Note: you have broken the 3RR rule. Themindset 19:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only considerations to be made about content on Wikipedia are made clear by Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Essentially, any information that isn't excluded by WWIN but that can be verified, can be included in an article. That's it - that's all there is to it. So the use of latex in relation to sexual/fetish/whatever can go in, no question. The norm in this situation would be to include the information and let it grow until it gets rather over-dominating (exuse the pun!), and then spin it out into a seperate article leaving a small section behind (with a link provided using {{details}}). Dan100 (Talk) 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • What about balance and relevance of the article. For instance, I included quite a bit about the breeding behaviour of mallards at the mallard article, but the content of the article was deemed unbalanced, and the breeding info was paired down. When discussed openly and fairly, it was changed and I accepted it. My example of the video camera is à propos, I think that latex probably has over a 1000 uses in today's society, and to unbalance the article so strongly in favour its fetishist applications may lead someone who is reading about latex for the first time to think that latex is predominantly sexual in nature. Themindset 23:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Depends if valid information was taken out or not. We're trying to give every single person on the planet... free access to the sum of all human knowledge [1], don't forget! Dan100 (Talk) 10:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Latex as fetishism vs BDSM

Hi. I found out about this because I was talking to User:Mistress Selina Kyle about an unrelated matter and then found her banned for 3RR violations because of this, so I thought to check it out. I agree that she did break 3RR, and a 24 hour block was appropriate, and she should have discussed it in talk. However, her version was the correct version, and I would like to explain why.

Latex is a type of clothing and is a material henceforth it is fetishism, not BDSM. There are fetishes for such things as leather, plastic, shoes, vinyl, velvet, masks and virtually every material in existence (some not sufficiently common to be worthy of a Wikipedia article). This is the nature of what fetishism is all about. Fetishism can also be for feet, hair, and other things too. Fetishism is in effect a sexual obsession with a type of thing.

Now, BDSM on the other hand often includes fetish elements, but it is not necessarily true. BDSM in essence is bondage, domination, sadism and masochism and can exist without any materials whatsoever. When using bondage, there are of course ties that are used, but this does not necessarily indicate a rope fetish or a handcuff fetish or a fetish with regards to the particular tie that is used. It can quite simply be a desire to be bound, irrespective of the other elements. Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.

To emphasise BDSM, certain clothing and styles are frequently worn, which are often related to fetishism, hence there is often a confusion that the two are the same thing.

Fetishism on the other hand does not necessarily indicate BDSM. For example, in certain British Royal circles, there is a foot fetish, but the people concerned are not remotely interested in BDSM. Indeed, latex fetishism can, and does, exist with a lot of people who are not interested in BDSM.

This overlap should not be confused. Latex is always a part of fetishism. It is not always a part of BDSM.

I trust that this is explained. Writing that Latex is a form of BDSM fashion is quite simply wrong. It can however state that it is a fetishism that is often associated with BDSM fashion as well. That would be correct, and a suitable compromise.

Anyway, that's my view on it. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad that you agree with us that she was wrong to keep reverting to versions that used 'BDSM' I hope that you can convince her. User:Noisy | Talk 12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, one amusing thing is that BDSM fashion is a redirect to fetish fashion. LOL. Its pretty funny really when you think about it. So we were reverting something that basically means the same thing. hehe. Mind you, I personally think that BDSM fashion is not the same thing as fetish fashion for reasons described above, but hey I guess they overlap so much that its okay. BDSM fashion is really a part of fetish fashion. A bit like how apples are a type of fruit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Latex Fetish Revert War

This is silly and needs to end. It's patently factual that latex is used as a sexual fetish by many. The article can't solely be about its non-sexual uses if we want to report on every facet of the issue, which seems to me to be what wikipedia is about. On the other hand, we don't necessarily need fetishism to become the main focus of the article. It's merely one use of latex, not the only use or even the most important one. Can you two reply here and have a discussion instead of just reverting each other? Thanks. -Kasreyn 01:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that "Mistress" refuses to discuss things, she just likes to revert (to paraphrase her). Themindset 01:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As I already said in the edit history here:

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO REMOVE ALL SEXUAL CONTENT. GOOGLE "latex fetish" or "latex sex" - EXTREMELY COMMON USE. THOUSANDS OF *LATEX FETISH CLOTHING* SHOPS --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You keep restoring fetish fashion and fetish club to the See also section. But they are already linked in the previous section, and reduntantly linking topics in the See also section goes against MoS. Themindset 01:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, what is your rationale for deleting all the external links except one then, other than obviously (readers, look at previous comments on this page by Themindset ("not suitable for an encyclopedia/unencyclopedic because it's got sexual content" etc) trying to censor anything related to sex in articles? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 01:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I've told you this before, and I will tell you again, do not put words that I haven't written into quotes. It's very unbecoming. I'm not against sexual content at all, I am against disproportianately focusing a sex-neutral material onto sex. I think one link is sufficient. Also, those other links could be considered linkspam, as they are commercial websites. Themindset 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the commercial links are not appropriate, but moving "Latex and PVC fetishism" down to the bottom with the inaccurate edit summary "moving so it's not first" is just plain petty. It wasn't first in the list to begin with, I ordered it as is our general standard with all disambiguation/See also lists, alphabetically. FCYTravis 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe it should be in this article at all. It should be in the latex clothing article, which is fully linked to. Themindset 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a perfectly encyclopedic topic that is a major use of latex. Leather fetishism is inline linked from Leather, we have a link to Erotic spanking from Spanking... if anything a "See also" link is too small, we ought to mention it in the main body of the article. I don't quite understand why you think we have to hide the fact that people fetishize latex rubber. FCYTravis 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your point about keeping it in the See also section, I concede. Themindset 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here; Those links are appropriate, and I put them back. BenBurch 01:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

add condoms manufacture

add condoms manufacturing to this article

Paint

The Paint article points out that Latex is a process and that latex paint is not the same as latex rubber. Should the article be renamed Latex rubber? --Gbleem 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Latex paint is not made from latex nor is it made from synthetic latex. 198.144.208.148 (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Latex allergies

What exactly is the name of the protein people are allergic to? --72.202.150.92 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural Rubber Latex proteins (abbreviated as NRL or NRLP).

• http://www.latexallergylinks.org/paint.html
• http://tutorials.simplycircus.com/manipulation/FAQ/latex_free.htm
• http://www.latexallergyresources.org/
• http://www.latexallergylinks.org/

Blatant advertising

There's a blatant ad for latex mattresses that links straight to a website selling them. I think it should be removed. I don't even think that mattresses need to be mentioned at all, really.Snorgle 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the link and descriptive phrase. I also got to wondering about the description of latex as "chemical free" - seems a bit odd, and possibly referring to latex being a natural product, but not very effectively. Snorgle 11:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Snorgle. It's a meaningless phrase. Nothing is chemical-free. Water is a chemical, for crying out loud. SeanWillard 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the phrasing now - "nearly free of synthetic chemicals". It sounds a bit odd. I may rephrase it later when I have more time.Snorgle 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I removed that phrase because I felt it didn't really fit, and was just put in there for the advertising link. I also note that the ad link was back again! So I removed that as well.Snorgle 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing this section ("Latex is used in the manufacturing of many types of mattresses such as sofas and beds.") altogether because from what I know, it just isn't true anymore Synthetic foams have pretty much completely replaced latex in the furniture industry. I ask anyone restoring it to provide a good reference to support the claim. -Verdatum (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Latex condoms

I always thought latex was used in the condom revolution, but this article doesn't mention it at all. What is the rubber they use in condoms? JayKeaton 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Latex Clothing doubts

I sincerely doubt the claims made in the section on latex clothing.

• "latex" in this sense (i.e. rubber latex) is a subset of rubber, it is not different from rubber fabric, merely different from some rubber fabrics.
• It is also not shinier, the shine is only created by a chemical surface treatment. Raw natural rubber latex fabric is powdered and quite matte/dull.
• As far as latex fabric being "thinner" than rubber, this is nonsense. Latex fabric whatever thickness you order (look at http://mjtrends.com as an example manufacturer).

I'm not even sure if the section is at all appropriate. This article uses the definition that latex is the particles in an aqueous solution. It then says that the main use of latex outside of nature is in the production of rubber. That claim completely covers the concept of rubber fabric, and there's no need to iterate through all uses of rubber in this article. Personally, I think it merely should be placed in the "see also" section, because the clothing/fabric just happens to commonly be referred to as "latex". Barring discussion, I may change the article as such in a week or two. -Verdatum (talk)

Latex Clothing doubts

I sincerely doubt the claims made in the section on latex clothing.

• "latex" in this sense (i.e. rubber latex) is a subset of rubber, it is not different from rubber fabric, merely different from some rubber fabrics.
• It is also not shinier, the shine is only created by a chemical surface treatment. Raw natural rubber latex fabric is powdered and quite matte/dull.
• As far as latex fabric being "thinner" than rubber, this is nonsense. Latex fabric whatever thickness you order (look at http://mjtrends.com as an example manufacturer).

I'm not even sure if the section is at all appropriate. This article uses the definition that latex is the particles in an aqueous solution. It then says that the main use of latex outside of nature is in the production of rubber. That claim completely covers the concept of rubber fabric, and there's no need to iterate through all uses of rubber in this article. Personally, I think it merely should be placed in the "see also" section, because the clothing/fabric just happens to commonly be referred to as "latex". Barring discussion, I may change the article as such in a week or two. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Latex...

What harmful toxins come from Latex?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.207.63 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Scope (latex, rubber, elastomer)

A lot of the past arguments related to this article appear to actually be related to ambiguities in the English language, and questions of article scope. I've been working on fixing this, along with other editors, but I am no professional in this field. I also have an American bias (I know other english speaking countries use "rubber" to refer to a pencil eraser, but I don't know if it progresses far beyond that). I'm mostly interested in organizing the information so there isn't a mass of redundancy between the various articles.

Currently, there are articles on latex, latex (polymer), natural rubber (rubber, gum rubber, and polyisoprene redirect there), synthetic rubber, and elastomer. In polymer science, latex has an explicit definition, so it makes sense to start there. Tracing the origin of the word latex (the milk-like sap from the rubber tree), brings us to what polymer science would refer to as "natural latex", being latex that composes the sap of various plants. This could also cover what is referred to as "liquid latex", used for mold-making, special effects cosmetics, and fetishism. That's the current focus of this article. However (this is my doing), the definition in the lead section of this article effectively matches the definition given by latex (polymer), which makes the scope a bit blurry. As a resolution, I would propose this page be moved to natural latex (it is already a redirect) so that this article may focus on the naturally occurring substance, and the polymer article can stick to the scientific properties of natural and artificial latex.

Unfortunately, the polymer science definition does not match the colloquial definition for the word "latex", which I perceive as 'rubber produced from natural latex, particularly of the rubber tree, particularly sheet-rubber'. Bad wording, I know, but it covers the major products that use the word 'latex' (latex condoms, latex gloves, latex clothing, latex fetishism) as well as the occasional non-sheet-latex terms that contain the word latex (foam-rubber latex).

So for reasons of organization, I'd propose moving those uses to the natural rubber article, and including in this article a brief mention of the confusion of terminology, and to the top of the article, add more explicit disambiguation instructions, "this article is about ... for ... see ..."

to clarify, elastomer covers aspects common to all "rubbery" products, natural and artificial. That term again has an explicit definition, so it makes scoping simple. synthetic rubber focuses on elastomers that are not made from natural latex, such as Neoprene, Polyurethane rubber, and silicone rubber. There is some redundancy between these two articles, but since those articles are short, and the redundancy is mostly in the form of a finite list of types of rubbers, I don't believe it's a major concern.

The disambiguation pages, latex (disambiguation) and rubber (disambiguation) are currently incorrect in terms of how the articles are organized. I'll fix this. If the above changes are enacted, they will need to be adjusted a bit more.

I'll link to this section in the talkpages of the other articles mentioned. Barring comments, I'll make the changes and put up a move request after a few days. -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor Article

I think this whole article needs a lot more input. It has a tiny amount of information, some of it mildly relevant. I think the uses of latex needs to be expanded. I came on here to see if it had a mention of latex use in pregnancy testing... perhaps someoone could comment on that also - 'application in medicine' or something like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark gg daniels (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(moved new topic to bottom of discussion, per convention) This is an issue of article scope. This article is about the liquid that comes from trees. The liquid that comes from trees is used in rubber and rubber is used in products. Since there are so many products that use rubber, it would get quite cluttery to try and list them all every article that is named after a potential synonym for rubber. I agree, further organization may be done. I made some proposals that I didn't completely follow up on back in October, but that just shows that there isn't a strong push towards reorganization or further discussion/action would have taken place by now.

To answer your question, due to growing concern of latex allergy, there has been a general move away from using latex in any medical products. There are many elastomers used as substitutes for natural rubber.

Why is latex considered an emulsion?

By my understanding, latex is a suspension predominantly of solid rubber particles in a liquid medium (mostly water). According to the colloid article, this would seem to make it a sol.

Is there some technical reason for it to be classified as an emulsion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.63.106 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at emulsion dispersion (and my comments there). I'm confused by the whole thing myself. -Verdatum (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the dispersed polymer is usually not liquid, latex is not an emulsion in most cases. Source: Blackly, Polymer Latices 2nd ed. --194.48.133.8 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Euphorbiaceae laticifer contradiction

The Biology section seemingly contradicts itself regarding the kind of laticifers that plants of the Euphorbiaceae have. In the first paragraph it says "members of the family Euphorbiaceae" have articulated laticifers, but in the second para it says "In many euphorbs, the entire structure is made from a single cell – this type of system is known as a non-articulated laticifer". Since euphorb means member of the family Euphorbiaceae, the latter contradicts the former. Are they articulated or not, or does it depend on the species within Euphorbiaceae? Someone with knowledge please update. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

We need to include rubber bands

Rubber bands totally belong in the (also see section) 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't need to list everything that happens to be made of rubber. Meters (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Latex - British English use

I am born and bred English. Except for the section 'Industrial and biological applications from synthetic latexes', most of the article is written in what I understand to be the use of the term Latex in British English.

I am only aware of the word Latex in British English being used to refer to rubber from natural sources and the liquid produced from plants often used to make rubber.

It may be in the chemical industry it can mean a milky dispersion, suspension or emulsion of other compounds, but that is not in general use in British English. At school in chemistry in the 1970s and 80s in the UK a milky emulsion would never have been called a latex, but I am not a polymer scientist or engineer so I do not know whether latex is used in the British polymer industry to refer to an emulsion/suspension, etc.

E.g. in the UK protective gloves are available made from Latex, Nitrile rubber, vinyl, etc... Where Latex is the term used to refer to natural latex rubber.

In British English a paint called latex paint would be expected to be a natural rubber based paint producing a flexible finish. Whereas in US English a Latex paint is what in British English is called an emulsion paint and is often not at all flexible when cured.

SBR Styrene-butadiene rubber in British English is not called synthetic latex. It is simply SBR and an SBR emulsion is commonly used in the building industry for various uses. It is never called a synthetic latex in British English.

Searching for latex in most search engines is made difficult by the software called LaTex, so I have nor references to cite. However I suggest the overview can be modified relatively minimally to reflect this. The also suggest the section 'Industrial and biological applications from synthetic latexes' should have some more significant rework to reflect the different uses of the word latex in the different regional variations of English. Lkingscott (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

South Africa and Austria seem to use the word similarly to British English, i.e. emulsion paint, not latex paint, etc.Lkingscott (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

"Rubber latex" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rubber latex 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/2024 August 31 § Rubber latex until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)