Talk:Rubberwood

Untitled
Can someone, help with the difference between Rubber Wood, Particle Board, MDF & Natural Wood?

This article is identical to what I found here: http://www.oakplus.com/rubberwood.htm I am not faimler with wikipedia policies but perhaps someone could use archive.org to check which came 1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.42.242 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I belive the bulk of this article is copied from a copyrighted source....http://web.archive.org/web/20010801183023/http://oakplus.com/rubberwood.htm

should it be delated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.42.242 (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be deleted, as it's an important item to have an article on. However, it also should not contain wholesale theft of a copyrighted source.  I'll tag it for cleanup.--JD79 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What color is rubberwood?
Get Your Bean Out For Joe Mycroft And His BACKSCRATCHER! What wood does rubberwood most closely match in color- maple, cherry, mahogany,oak, or other. Please let me know, as I need to match a buffet to a cherry dining room set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.29.15.15 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the copypaste tag and also added a bit about how Rubberwood is often used by manufactures by adding Wood finishing techniques to mimic many more expensive wood types, like oak, cherrywood, etc. The rubberwood I have recently seen (as in like shopping for a futon frame as of 12/07) was buff (color) like this Buff - #F0DC82 Good luck, rkmlai (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Period
I removed this sentenced because not informative. Misunderstood in which sense? By whom? Which misconceptions are invoked? by whom? "Rubberwood is often misunderstood as a species of wood utilized in the furniture industry. The name of rubberwood itself invokes a variety of misconceptions as to its features and to its durability. "--Dia^ (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Commercial advertisment
I attached a merge tag as this is not a notable wood, as such things go; the tree is hugely important, with the wood merely a by-product.

Actually the wood seems to be becoming popular for furniture so it is notable. (That's why I looked it up). This article could be cleaned up- it seems repetitive and unorganized.

It is interesting that this article (made by a user who only contributed this one item) started as a copy-and-paste from a commercial page and that some hours after I removed the false commercial claims it was reverted back to the commercial advertisement (by an IP-address that is listed as having made no edit other than this). A very good illustration of how Wikipedia is a platform for special interests? - Ibbel (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Article needs verifiable information
I agree with the gist of the above comments. Lots of unsourced claims about rubberwood here, all of them positive. I'll try to find some more authoritative information over the next few weeks. I do think it is probably worth having a separate article for the wood, provided that we can improve it. If the article can't be improved upon, however, I'd support deleting and merging with the tree. --Daveyjchicago (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) get your bean out wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.130.33 (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite the stilted view of Rubberwood
Whoever wrote this last iteration is obviously biased against rubberwood for whatever reason. The information provided is also questionable at best. Yoder (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Took out biased phrasing and information.
Yoder (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the information back in. Why have an article at all, if it provides no information? There is no doubt about its accuracy; rubberwood has been tested very thoroughly and its properties are well-known: these are such that it can be used only for a limited range of uses. - Ibbel (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It really doesn't matter if the author or any future editor is pro- or anti-rubberwood. It is simply a matter of standard Wikipedia policy. Cite some sources for these "well-known" properties, or remove the information, to paraphrase Jimmy Wales from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Mba4931627 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are misquoting. What matter is to provide verifiable information. That rubberwood is a so-so wood is easily verifiable, a few minutes with Google will bear this out, no special insight or sources required. - Ibbel (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Took the information back out. If you are not going to have accurate information then why have any information at all.  The added material is obviously biased and does not contain sources. Yoder (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is not favorable to those who sell rubberwood furniture. That does not mean it is biased. - Ibbel (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

biased information removed again.Yoder (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you have run out of arguments. - Ibbel (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The information in this article was not writing in a strictly factual manner. The information carried a blatantly biased tone and a casual dialect not suitable for an encyclopedia. I have henceforth deleted much of the article and provided a new url link. Kimberlykl2009 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * regarding your edit, I reverted your good faith edits by Kimberlykl2009; Please incorporate new information (under a CC License) into the Rubberwood article rather than deleting information and replacing with the link: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:hQDJx1AnrIQJ:www.url.biz/Articles/Article-1413.html+parawood+heavy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


 * Peace, rkmlai (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Again. - Ibbel (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In agreement about the decidedly biased and casual nature of this entry!!
I am in agreement with the previous posting that, in fact, there is a decidedly biased and casual tone to the entire citation which implies that the author is not contributing a balanced and accurate representation of the qualities of Rubberwood. There is little, if any information referencing the more positive aspects of the wood. Such as the following: Rubber plantations produce latex to make natural rubber. After 25-30 years it is no longer economical to produce latex and the trees are harvested and replanted. The wood of the rubbertree is very useful : beautiful light-coloured texture, suitable strength, low shrinkage and excellent machining properties. Rubberwood has become very popular and is one of the best timbers for making staircases, furniture and building products,...

In short : everything which can be made in solid wood. Main advantages of rubberwood : -   excellent stability : ideal for laminated squares and panels -   excellent machining properties : sawing, boring, turning, ... -   light colour : easy to finish in any color

A more detailed review of the qualities, both favourable and otherwise, are outlined in the following online document:

I believe that it is possible to make 'factual' statements which carry overtones of bias just in the way the statements are phrased. I don't think that there is any doubt in the reader's mind who takes a moment to reflect, that the author's intent is to malign the importation and use of this wood over that of native hardwoods. Nobody is arguing that there are finer medium hardwoods out there, just take care to represent the subject of your entry in a more scholarly manner -- this is supposed to be an encyclopedia after all. --Loupgarou62 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is always a happy event to see somebody in so much agreement with himself! As the referred to document, as well as the one at the same site with the opposite introduction are unavailable, the most noticeable document at the site appears this. That document expresses the success of rubberwood as an economical product, it being cheap and much exported. About the qualities of wood it notes that rubberwood is sadly deficient, but that this is not a kiss of death as measures can be taken to use it where its deficiencies are not an objection, and that as a commercial product it has a very attractive countervailing property: it is cheap and in abundant supply. Cheap wood is always popular (and thus a success). Of course its commercial succes would be even greater if the customers are kept unaware of what they are actually buying....
 * However, all that does not necessarily belong here, as it could also fit in well among the commercial exploitation of rubber plantations. - Ibbel (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I planned to update this with a bit of balance until I saw the Edit History and realized it would be futile. I would point out, that the second FAO report referred to above has the following words (Page 5):

"Rubberwood’s favourable woodworking and timber properties make this medium-dense timber (air-dry density 560–650 kg m-3 Lee 1982) suitable for a wide scope of applications. It can be easily steam-bent, or stained to resemble any other timber, depending on consumer demand. Its favourable qualities and light colour make it a good substitute for ramin (Gonystylus bancanus Baill.), a timber known for its quality in furniture making and other applications."


 * Additionally, on Page 6, section 2.3, it goes on to say:

"Due to lack of durability, rubberwood was rarely used as utility timber except in timber-scarce countries. After a number of problems had been overcome with the help of applied research, particularly in connection with wood seasoning and preservation but also related to the small size of logs, rubberwood developed as one of the most successful export timbers of Southeast Asia."


 * The above quote is the closest I can find to Ibbel's assertion that the article in question calls Rubberwood 'sadly deficient'. Ibbel however does not include the caveat that "a number of problems had been overcome with the help of applied research" (which given the context, implies that this made rubberwood's lack of durability a non-issue, or at least less of one).  - gambler1650


 * Additionally, the current article states, apparently referring to the link at the bottom of the page:

The wood, sometimes also called parawood, is very susceptible to decay and should be used only indoors. It tends to warp notably during drying.


 * Here's what the linked to article actually says:

Drying and Shrinkage: Air-dries rapidly; warp is severe unless stickers are closely spaced and the piles are weighted; should be dried under cover. Lumber requires chemical dipping to control blue stain and borer attack.

Durability: The timber is perishable and stains readily. Also highly susceptible to borer and termite attack as well as powder-post beetles.

Preservation: Reported to have satisfactory treatability; absorbs 7 pcf of preservative oils using a hot and cold bath system.


 * Note that the above properties refer to Rubberwood before it's treated. Warp is severe _unless_ .  And it's obvious from the above that the chemical dipping is meant to control the blue stain and borer attacks that the current Wikipedia article implies occur in any Rubberwood product (not the unfinished wood which is what the linked article itself is referring to).  - gambler1650


 * This last remark is quite accurate. The article is about rubberwood. This means it should give information about rubberwood. The fact that under certain circumstances a product made of rubberwood does not immediately suffer from the properties of rubberwood is at best circumstantial. The same goes for cardboard. A chair made from rubberwood can, under certain circumstances, serve the same purposes as a chair made from teak (such as for sitting on, in a particular room). Equally a chair made from cardboard can, under certain circumstances, serve the same purposes as a chair made from teak (such as for sitting on, in a particular room). So what? Following this reasoning cardboard would be a substitute for teak. Right. - Ibbel (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, if the focus is on the rubberwood itself, before treatment, then the qualifier "lower quality" in front of furniture doesn't seem to apply. Obviously if you create one chair out of rubberwood and one out of teak without any treatment, then the one made out of teak will be superior for its purpose (durability, ability to resist wood boring insects, use outside as opposed to inside, etc). However, I have yet to find a statement in the reference you provided, or the other two which you deleted (which, since they provide references for some of the rest of the other content, I am going to put back in), which says that TREATED rubberwood furniture is low quality furniture.  I also question the phrase "treatment keeps some of the deficiencies under control'.  Which deficiencies are not kept under control by treatment?   Please provide a source (it's possible I misread the references as well), otherwise that line should be stricken or revised to remove the error.  Finally, I'll point out that most encyclopedia articles (here and otherwise) on various woods include far more than just a narrow focus on 'untreated wood'.  Take a look at 'oak' or 'teak' for instance.  - gambler1650
 * No, a chair made out of teak is not thereby of superior quality. There are lots of very poor quality chairs made out of teak. The few producers of superior quality chairs will be selective of their material (and won't even think of using rubberwood, why should they?). And treatment does not really improve anything. Argually, putting in poison in the wood (preservatives) decreases the safety and quality. These treatments just prevent (more or less) the indifferent qualities from effecting the end user (under most circumstances. But for most end uses it would be more effective if the rubberwood was ground up and processed into MDF, and then painted. - Ibbel (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Para rubber tree?
What's the actual benefit of having rubberwood split out from Para rubber tree? Perhaps it should be merged, as a section called "Usage" (similar to teak and oak). Thoughts? - gambler1650 —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
 * There is not necessarily any benefit of keeping this apart, which is why I suggested merging. - Ibbel (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

removed
I am removing the

"Rubberwood utilisation was pioneered by Kingsley Tisseverasinghe of Sri Lanka (b.24/01/1927).[citation needed] Before his discovery of a feasible treatment process for the wood of the rubber tree, the tree was only used for tapping/ harvesting of the tree's sap. His technique has led to the widespread usage of rubberwood as a multipurpose lumber product."

It has all the hallmarks of a hoax, put in there to get the name of a person into an article. Ibbel (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)