Talk:Artex

message: What a polite way of putting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.130.18 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As of 2012 Artex is still sold, but the textured ceiling finishes are a good deal less popular." 

message: Source for this rumoured CIA plot? This is the first I've heard of it (bar a spot-gag on a UK TV show in January, possibly Mock the Week) and a quick Google turns up nothing, other than some foreign language (Spanish and Italian) acronyms. At least one of these is for a bakery. 
Also, crazy as CIA and other intelligence plots have been, the idea that a product designed and recommended for covering up bad plaster on the ceiling rather than walls (misuses notwithstanding) would be expected to 'rip arms to shreds' causing people to seek medical attention at all hours would have led to massive population decline as the NHS failed to cope, private medicine in the UK not having anywhere like the capacity, for most of the Cold War, to provide an adequate backup. 
Finally, anyone who has seen a variety of Artex'd ceilings can probably recall that the 'stipple' effect - the short peaks most likely to cause damage (and boy, can they) - was only one of several possible finishes, the other likely candidates (smooth like a plaster surface, fan shapes overlapping like scales) being more time-consuming and requiring greater skill in order to successfully complete. Given the use of the product as a non-professional's solution to a professional's problem (the aforementioned state of plaster in surviving pre-war buildings) it is hardly surprising this finish was most common. It is also most noticeable, and impossible to mistake for plaster or blown vinyl wallpaper.
I suggest someone with more time rewrites the article: I can't think of a way to do it that isn't an ad for Artex. Pictures of finishes might help.
15/05/2015 I reworded the first paragraph of health risks so it doesn't sound like an ad for Artex. Ikarusdk(talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I first removed the paragraph on the CIA plot and it was reverted; I then added a 'Citation Needed' tag and this has since been removed. Both reverts have been carried out by the original user who added this information. My reason to believe its continued existence is that this article was referred to in a Lancaster University lecture to highlight the supposed unreliability of using Wikipedia as a resource and that the lecturer intends to keep the Artex "CIA plot" paragraph in to demonstrate to students that indeed, wikipedia should not be used for degree work. I believe this breaks both the Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Could the original author therefore please find a reference for this CIA artex plot? Nicholas J Bell 14:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumoured CIA plot? 

message: This section needs a fair bit of work, at the moment it confuses safety with regulation, gives questionable advice, and lacks any sense of proportion re risks.
82.31.207.100 (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risks 

message: Google comes up with lots of information about the possible asbestos content, which is usually quoted to be less than four percent, but very little about the main ingredients. Was it more like a mineral plaster or more similar to thick acrylic paint? --92.201.162.176 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other ingredients?