Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-31T18:53:04Z

JimJeweler: /* Australia */ Reply.

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==An unbiased view (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2008-12-30T15:28:24Z

JimJeweler: /* Australia */ Hopefully, I won't get a block for appealing to sanity this time again by someone who openly calls others idiots!

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-10T16:00:30Z

JimJeweler: /* Adulteress story */ suggestion? Or not... meh D:

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:Many Christians don't believe in Hell or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved. See [http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm Jesus' Teaching on Hell, Samuel G. Dawson] [[User:BernardH|BernardH]] 13:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::''or believe that Hell is a place where we are purified but all will eventually be saved.'' That is not believing in Hell; that is believing in [[Purgatory]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

''"Many Christians believe etc."''
What kind of argument is that? Truth is independent of belief. What "many christians believe" has no impact on the reality of Hell.

Still, no one has yet attempted to explain how the passae conflicts with Jesus' emphasis on Hell.
We've sufficiently demonstrated that the passage is '''used''' (or misused) to arue against hell, but the page still doesn't explain how or why it is actually in conflict with the reality of Hell (or Jesus' emphasis thereon). --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's a curious case! The connections between human ghosts and the Holy Ghost are patently absurd, however. I think it has to do with the German (perhaps Old-English?) rootword Geist, which means both Ghost and Spirit. Translation is often a problem. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:22, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)
:::I'm going to half-agree with Andy here: I have heard people (ministers included) reference this story as an argument against capital punishment, and/or to downplay the notion of harsh punishments from God. However, I must take issue with the idea that the story's "authenticity is rejected by modern biblical scholars". While some reject it entirely, and most dispute its placement, my understanding is that it is considered to be an actual Jesus story, and the implication that all scholars reject it out of hand is preposterous. At the ''very'' least, there should be a "some" inserted between "by" and "modern".--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Given that there's now further testimony of the passage being used to oppose hell and capital punishment, I'll accept that. However, not all the objections have been addressed.
:::: Further, Andy's edit comment and reply here are offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated. As I have repeatedly pointed out before, it is NOT censorship to remove inaccurate information (which is what I believed this to be). Further, it is NOT a valid argument to simply declare yourself correct ("There's no denying...").
:::: Finally, there was no explanation for the reversion of a wording change that was made at the same time.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 9 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, your edits again distort the entry without justification. For example, you say that the passage is "misused" to deny the existence of Hell (which you notably spell with a small "h"). There is evidence that the passage is fake, but no justification for saying it is "misused". The passage, if taken at face value, does support an argument denying the existence of Hell.
::::::The passage taken at face value does ''not'' deny the existence of Hell. It is an example of Christ's forgiveness, which he offers to everyone, regardless of the severity of their sin. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:01, 9 December 2008 (EST)
::::: Another change is you insist on putting a website in the text rather than in a footnote, perhaps to try to downplay the (undeniable) point being made. Websites belong in the footnotes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your "reversion explained" does not explain the wholesale reversion of my edits including formatting changes nor much of my rewording, such as the sentence introducing the different translation comments.
:::::: The passage does not directly nor indirectly mention hell, so does ''not'' deny the existence of hell, at face value or otherwise.
:::::: The "misused" word was yours. I didn't add that.
:::::: I did not spell Hell with a lower-case "h". The only use of that in the section is in a quote that you inserted.
:::::: I did not "insist" on putting a web-site in the text. I did put it in the text, but only because it's normal practice when quoting someone to say ''in the text'' who is being quoted. As there was not an author's name to attribute it to, I attributed it to the web-site.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: ''offensive, illogical, and unsubstantiated'' You are skating on very thin ice with abusive comments like that. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:33, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: You have a problem with the truth? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:01, 10 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: You are both out of order. When comments get above six colons, the indent should be reset to the edge of the page.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Did you just make that up, Mr. nine-colons? :-) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: I thought it was a rule, but maybe I'm wrong. The amount of time I spend on here, I wouldn't be surprised if I'd dreamt it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I didn't know the six colon rule, CP, but I do now! As for Philip: I don't have any problem with the truth; what I do have a problem with is your increasingly aggressive and intemperate attitude towards Andy, who, as the Founder and Leader of Conservapedia is entitled to courtesty and respect, not insult. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:15, 10 December 2008 (EST)
: If I'm increasingly aggressive and intemperate toward Andy, then I'm merely following the example set by our Founder and Leader. Is there any better way to show courtesy and respect other than to try and be like him? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, your angry and insulting comments are increasingly inappropriate. We're going to keep a high level of discourse here consistent with our purpose. Also, website references belong in footnotes, not the text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:43, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::: If we are going to keep a high level of discourse here, why do you insult me by ignoring my questions and comments, by calling my attempts to make the article more accurate "censorship", and calling me "liberal"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:10, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, we're building an encyclopedia here. I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk. Your edits have far too high a percentage of talk and edits that are reverted. Deleting information is censorship, and I don't think I ever called you a liberal. Supporting gun control is a liberal position; claiming that "beauty is on the eye of the beholder" is an atheistic view; and spelling Hell with a small "h" does suggest a denial of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I don't know if using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell is a very common thing. The provided source links to a forum post, where the Adulteress Story seems like a very minor point in the guy's argument. Anyone who is trying to use that verse to deny Hell is really just grasping at straws. Could we find a better source for this? I searched briefly but found no other instance of using the Adulteress Story to deny Hell. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Mr. Schlafly! Look at this petition!]] 10:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Since Mr. Aschlafly has refused to participate in discussion any further ("I'm not going to waste more time in talk, talk, talk.") and has shown no further evidence to his side other than offering ad hominum and other fallacious statements like "undeniable", why not just go with Mr. Philip Rayment's edits? It boggles the mind as to how one can push their side of the discussion without giving any sort of reason. Seems pretty simple which side to pick... [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 11:00, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Bixbite

2008-12-10T15:51:17Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Red beryl

#REDIRECT [[Red beryl]]

Scarlet emerald

2008-12-10T15:51:06Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Red beryl

#REDIRECT [[Red beryl]]

Red emerald

2008-12-10T15:50:41Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Red beryl

#REDIRECT [[Red beryl]]

Red beryl

2008-12-10T15:50:14Z

JimJeweler: Worked on one of these (.15ct ) the other day.

'''Red beryl''' is a type of [[emerald]] that shows a deep, orange-purple to red hue [[color]]. It is one of the rarest [[mineral]]s in the world, with no known sizes averaging larger than three [[carats]]. They can be found in only four locations in the [[United States]], with two areas in [[Utah]] and [[New Mexico]].

Known through other nicknames such as ''red emerald'', ''scarlet emerald'', and ''bixbite'', the latter not to be confused with [[bixbyite]]. The red color is due to a substitution of [[manganese]] in the crystalline structure, rather than [[aluminium]], which would give the trademark green color.

The largest [[facet]]ed red beryl weighs 8.0 carats, and the largest [[crystal]] formation found approximately weighs 54 carats.<ref>http://www.galleries.com/minerals/silicate/beryl/redberyl.htm</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

User talk:JimJeweler

2008-12-10T15:25:56Z

JimJeweler:

{{Welcome}} --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
I like your edits to the gem articles. I'm a rock and mineral collector myself, but I love gems too! --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:25, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Sapphire

2008-12-10T15:16:11Z

JimJeweler:

The '''sapphire''' is a [[precious stone]] that is considered among the most valuable of [[gemstone]]s. Sapphires are found in shades of blue, purple, and green. Many are transparent. Most of the highest quality sapphires come from [[India]], as well as [[Thailand]], [[Sri Lanka]], and [[Myanmar]]. They are also found in parts of [[Australia]], and a variety with a distinct color have been found in [[Montana]], in the [[United States]].

The sapphire is the [[birthstone]] for [[September]]. Interestingly, both sapphire and ruby are the same material, [[corundum]], (an aluminum oxide, Al2O3).<ref>[http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/amber/go340/corundum.htm Emporia.edu]</ref>

The largest sapphire in the world is the Millennium Sapphire, weighing over 61,500 [[carats]] (over 27 [[pounds]]), and is valued beyond tens of millions of dollars.<ref>http://www.millenniumsapphire.com/pages/story.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:minerals]]
[[Category:Gems]]
[[Category:Birthstones]]
[[Category:Luxury]]

User talk:JimJeweler

2008-12-05T22:38:29Z

JimJeweler: Thanks, but...

User talk:JimJeweler

2008-12-05T21:33:09Z

JimJeweler: /* category? */

{{welcome}}

== Jewelry expertise? ==

We could use some articles, or improvements to articles, on the following types of gemstone:

* [[Ruby]]
* [[Topaz]]
* [[Emerald]]
* [[Garnet]]
* [[Sapphire]]
* [[Diamond]]
* [[Turquoise]]
* [[Agate]]
* [[Amethyst]]
* [[Beryl]]
* [[Onyx]]
* [[Jasper]]

In case you don't recognize that particular selection, they happen to be the stones of the [[Breastplate of Judgment]] worn by [[Aaron]] and his descendants. If you go to [[Twelve Tribes of Israel]], you'll see a gallery with enlarged pictures of all of them, in the order of their appearance on the garment. (I added the stenciled [[Hebrew]] text on each photograph.)--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:32, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:Admittedly, I'm not a very religious person and don't know much about the Breasplate except the gemstones themselves, but I'd be more than happy to learn about it and include that in my edits. I'm always interested in ancient jewelry. Thanks! Jalast Jeweler 14:18, 4 December 2008 (EST)

== category? ==

Hi - keep up the good work, I am enjoying your articles. Just want to check - these do all count as "gems" right? Just want to add a category:gems to the articles to assist navigation. Silly question, I know - but you know girls - our knowledge begins and ends at 'diamond' ^_^ --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''ohayougozaimasu'']] 12:40, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:''our knowledge begins and ends at 'diamond' ^_^'' Too cute! :P
:A gem is basically a stone or mineral that has significant value (precious and semi-precious). So yep, the articles I've made so far qualify as gems. I don't have much knowledge of rocks that geologists would know. Isn't there already a category for gems though? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 16:33, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Bloodstone

2008-12-05T17:38:29Z

JimJeweler:

'''Bloodstone''', also known as the mineral [[heliotrope]], is commonly known as green [[jasper]] with [[iron oxide]] inclusions, giving a reddish color that resembled specks of [[blood]], hence the name. The primary source of finding bloodstone is [[India]], followed by [[Australia]], [[Brazil]], [[China]], and [[United States]].

==History==

Bloodstones are the original [[birthstone]] of [[March]]. [[Aquamarine]] and jasper are also considered birthstones for March.

During the [[Middle Ages]], bloodstones were thought to hold the blood of [[Jesus]], giving powers such as miraculous healing and [[invisible|invisibility]]. [[Christians]] often carved scenes of the [[crucifixion]] and images of [[martyrs]].

[[category: Birthstones]] [[category: Gems]]

Bloodstones

2008-12-05T17:32:16Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Bloodstone

#REDIRECT [[Bloodstone]]

Bloodstone

2008-12-05T17:32:01Z

JimJeweler: New page: '''Bloodstone''', also known as the mineral heliotrope, is commonly known as green jasper with iron oxide inclusions, giving a reddish color that resembled specks of blood,...

'''Bloodstone''', also known as the mineral [[heliotrope]], is commonly known as green [[jasper]] with [[iron oxide]] inclusions, giving a reddish color that resembled specks of [[blood]], hence the name. The primary source of finding bloodstone is [[India]], followed by [[Australia]], [[Brazil]], [[China]], and [[United States]].

==History==

Bloodstones are the original [[birthstone]] of [[March]]. [[Aquamarine]] and jasper are also considered birthstones for March.

During the [[Middle Ages]], bloodstones were thought to hold the blood of [[Jesus]], giving powers such as miraculous healing and [[invisibility]]. [[Christians]] often carved scenes of the [[crucifixion]] and images of [[martyrs]].

Star sapphire

2008-12-05T17:10:22Z

JimJeweler: Oops, not a reference lol

A '''star sapphire''' is a [[sapphire]] with an inclusion of [[asterism]], very small [[mineral]] deposits of [[rutile]] (titanium dioxide) that naturally form within the sapphire to create rays (up to six) that reflect light, a white appearance on an otherwise blue-colored [[gemstone]].

The Star of India, the largest known star sapphire in the world, weighs 563.35 [[carats]] (112.67 grams). It is almost flawless in appearance, and even has star rays on both sides of the gemstone.

==External Links==

*[http://amnh.org/museum/tourplan/images/gallery/lg/star_india.jpg Star of India picture]

[[category: Gems]]

Star sapphire

2008-12-05T17:09:14Z

JimJeweler:

A '''star sapphire''' is a [[sapphire]] with an inclusion of [[asterism]], very small [[mineral]] deposits of [[rutile]] (titanium dioxide) that naturally form within the sapphire to create rays (up to six) that reflect light, a white appearance on an otherwise blue-colored [[gemstone]].

The Star of India, the largest known star sapphire in the world, weighs 563.35 [[carats]] (112.67 grams).<ref>[http://amnh.org/museum/tourplan/images/gallery/lg/star_india.jpg Picture of the Star of India]</ref> It is almost flawless in appearance, and even has star rays on both sides of the gemstone.

==References==

<references />

[[category: Gems]]

Cabochon

2008-12-05T17:05:11Z

JimJeweler:

'''Cabochon''' (also pronounced Cabachon) are [[gemstone]]s that have been shaped to a rounded finish and polished instead of [[facet]]ed. Usually [[oval]] in shape and with a flat bottom, cabochons are usually preferred for gemstones that have a low hardness rating on the [[hardness|Moh's Hardness Scale]] and have many [[inclusion]]s that would otherwise make the stone unattractive or even more brittle if faceted, due to having many sides that could expose a crack or imperfection to be easily damaged if struck. Instead, cabbing exposes a larger portion of the gemstone, while [[polish]]ing increases the attractiveness and fills any gaps, cracks, or scratches.

Some gemstones, like [[star sapphire]]s, have natural "star"-like inclusions that require cabbing in order to show the full effect.

[[category: Gems]] [[category: Crafts]]

Gemstones

2008-12-05T16:58:51Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Gemstone

#REDIRECT [[Gemstone]]

Gems

2008-12-05T16:58:36Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Gem

#REDIRECT [[Gem]]

Pearls

2008-12-05T16:58:08Z

JimJeweler: Redirecting to Pearl

#REDIRECT [[Pearl]]

Carat

2008-12-05T16:57:31Z

JimJeweler: New page: A '''carat''' is a unit of measurement of mass for gems and pearls. 1 carat is the equivalent to 200 milligrams or one fifth of a gram, and 5 carats equate to 1 gram. [[ca...

A '''carat''' is a unit of measurement of mass for [[gem]]s and [[pearl]]s. 1 carat is the equivalent to 200 [[milligram]]s or one fifth of a [[gram]], and 5 carats equate to 1 gram.

[[category: Measurements]]

Carats

2008-12-05T16:57:23Z

JimJeweler: oops!

#REDIRECT [[Carat]]

Carats

2008-12-05T16:55:18Z

JimJeweler: New page: A '''carat''' is a unit of measurement of mass for gems and pearls. 1 carat is the equivalent to 200 milligrams or one fifth of a gram, and 5 carats equate to 1 gram. [[ca...

Star sapphire

2008-12-05T16:45:47Z

JimJeweler:

Star sapphire

2008-12-05T16:45:21Z

JimJeweler: New page: A '''star sapphire''' is a sapphire with an inclusion of asterism, very small mineral deposits of rutile (titanium dioxide) that naturally form within the sapphire to create ra...

A '''star sapphire''' is a sapphire with an inclusion of [[asterism]], very small [[mineral]] deposits of [[rutile]] (titanium dioxide) that naturally form within the sapphire to create rays (up to six) that reflect light, a white appearance on an otherwise blue-colored [[gemstone]].

The Star of India, the largest known star sapphire in the world, weighs 563.35 [[carats]] (112.67 grams). It is almost flawless in appearance, and even has star rays on both sides of the gemstone.

[[category: Gems]]

Cabochon

2008-12-05T16:35:34Z

JimJeweler: New page: '''Cabochon''' (also pronounced Cabachon) are gemstones that have been shaped to a rounded finish and polished instead of faceted. Usually oval in shape and with a flat bottom,...

'''Cabochon''' (also pronounced Cabachon) are [[gemstone]]s that have been shaped to a rounded finish and polished instead of [[facet]]ed. Usually [[oval]] in shape and with a flat bottom, cabochons are usually preferred for gemstones that have a low hardness rating on the [[Moh hardness scale]] and have many [[inclusion]]s that would otherwise make the stone unattractive or even more brittle if faceted, due to having many sides that could expose a crack or imperfection to be easily damaged if struck. Instead, cabbing exposes a larger portion of the gemstone, while [[polish]]ing increases the attractiveness and fills any gaps, cracks, or scratches.

Some gemstones, like [[star sapphire]]s, have natural "star"-like inclusions that require cabbing in order to show the full effect.

[[category: Gems]] [[category: Crafts]]

Bezel

2008-12-05T15:41:02Z

JimJeweler:

A '''bezel''' is a metallic [[rim]] which sets or encapsulates jewelry and ornaments, either as a mild protective barrier or allowing attachments to loose [[gemstone]]s. It is one of the earliest forms of setting gemstones into jewelry. Easily worked by hand or with a small amount of pressure (using a [[bezel roller]]), the bezel is thin strips usually consisting of [[silver]], [[brass]], [[gold]], and other soft, pliable metals, the purpose of which can be manipulated with the least amount of effort and also appreciate the item's overall value. Some gemstones, such as [[diamond]]s, need no protection with bezel setting, but rather the setting protects surfaces that the diamond may scratch or damage, as opposed to [[prong setting]] which exposes the gemstone.

''Bezel wire'' is a single piece of [[wire]] that has a much smaller width, and must be stacked or coiled in order to achieve the same purpose as a strip. This gives more options of preference to the wire shape, such as rounded or circular, squared, serrated, or flat-rounded (circular, with a flattened side). The individual wires, though more time-consuming and difficult, give the jeweler more artistic freedom. The advantage of using wires than strips is avoiding the use of [[solder]] to join the ends, instead wrapping one length of wire around another to create a [[coil]].

[[Bezel setting]] has been associated mostly with [[jewelry]], though it can be applied to almost any object. [[Cabochon]] stones are primarily used for bezel setting, their shape having a flat surface that a back-plate can be soldered onto the bezel, securing while [[facet]]ed stones require grooves into the bezel metal itself.

[[category: Art]] [[category: Crafts]]

User talk:JimJeweler

2008-12-04T19:18:43Z

JimJeweler: /* Jewelry expertise? */ Sounds interesting! Thanks.

Bezel

2008-12-04T19:04:22Z

JimJeweler: New page: A '''bezel''' is a metallic rim which sets or encapsulates jewelry and ornaments, either as a mild protective barrier or allowing attachments to loose gemstones. It is one of the e...

A '''bezel''' is a metallic [[rim]] which sets or encapsulates jewelry and ornaments, either as a mild protective barrier or allowing attachments to loose [[gemstone]]s. It is one of the earliest forms of setting gemstones into jewelry. Easily worked by hand or with a small amount of pressure (using a [[bezel roller]]), the bezel is thin strips usually consisting of [[silver]], [[brass]], [[gold]], and other soft, pliable metals, the purpose of which can be manipulated with the least amount of effort and also appreciate the item's overall value. Some gemstones, such as [[diamond]]s, need no protection with bezel setting, but rather the setting protects surfaces that the diamond may scratch or damage, as opposed to [[prong setting]] which exposes the gemstone.

''Bezel wire'' is a single piece of [[wire]] that has a much smaller width, and must be stacked or coiled in order to achieve the same purpose as a strip. This gives more options of preference to the wire shape, such as rounded or circular, squared, serrated, or flat-rounded (circular, with a flattened side). The individual wires, though more time-consuming and difficult, give the jeweler more artistic freedom. The advantage of using wires than strips is avoiding the use of [[solder]] to join the ends, instead wrapping one length of wire around another to create a [[coil]].

Bezel setting has been associated mostly with [[jewelry]], though it can be applied to almost any object. [[Cabochon]] stones are primarily used for bezel setting, their shape having a flat surface that a back-plate can be soldered onto the bezel, securing while [[facet]]ed stones require grooves into the bezel metal itself.

[[category: Arts]] [[category: Crafts]]