Talk:Blarney Stone

Let's get this article into decent shape

I agree with almost all of the criticisms documented below. The article currently does little more than recycle vague touristy talk about "legends", and does little to illuminate an understanding of the stone itself. The unsourced speculation about Queen Elizabeth and the etymology of "blarney" seems unsupportable by the historical record.

I've added a section on "Ritual", underscoring its location and the difficulty of kissing it. Next up, I'd like to see "History" and "Legend" put into separate sections. Perhaps another section on purported "fragments" of the stone, such as the one in Austin, Texas?-- P L E A T H E R _talk 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing on the Blarney Stone

Viking880 10:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Is there some actual proof of locals desecrating the stone, or is this a little bit of Blarney in itself?[reply]

If you google "blarney stone" piss you find many people saying that they themselves urinate(d) on it or have Irish friends who claim to have done so. I would bet that even if it was a bit of Blarney in the beginning that it has now taken on a life of its own and inspired people to actually do it. Danguyf 12:12, 26 January 2006

The gift of the gab bestowed is really the gift of flattery (irish plamas) rather than eloquence . This is where Wikipedia seems to fail. What exactly do we need to produce as evidence that people do, in fact, piss on that Blarney stone? I mean, I myself did it while living in Ireland for two years doing networking work. However, the fact that I can give a first hand account of myself specifically having done it, along with several friends, is going to be cited as 'original research', right? So what next? Does it need to be mentioned in a travel guide or in the Harvard Business Review or the Guardian? This isn't nonsensical or jokey opinion being posted. It's friggin' fact. The fact that someone feels a citation is required here is just lunacy. As is the fact that people keep trying to delete the line. IT'S TRUE! 24.62.27.66 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally yes, something does need to appear in print to be included in Wikipedia. Remember, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (from WP:V). --TeaDrinker 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most genuinely disheartening thing I've ever read. No wonder Wikipedia gets mocked more and more in popular culture. 24.62.27.66 05:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify that with a printed source? That wikipedia is mocked due to the verification requirements? Noserider (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The obvious solution here is to take a picture of yourself doing it then upload it. Duh! Utils 19:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC) A snopes link.Utils 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to see that, given that the castle grounds are locked when the castle is closed to the public and the rest of the time there are people there! Rickogorman 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban legend vs. fact

It seems to me that some of the discussion here misses the point. While it's not permissible for the article to say that locals do piss on the Stone unless this has been published in some reliable source, it is certainly clear that there exists an urban legend about locals pissing on the Blarney Stone. The article can, and should, mention that since the existence of the urban legend is sufficiently well-supported to meet Wikipedia's criteria.

Regarding 24.62.27.66's comments above: Actually, one person's experience of having peed on the thing is not all that important. It would be pretty surprising, especially given the existence of the legend, if somebody hadn't peed on the thing at some point. It wouldn't be hard at all for anyone who works there to do, after closing time (or before opening time). It's not really worth mentioning in the article, though, unless it's a regular occurrence.--Srleffler 20:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pissing on the stone is referenced in Fight Club (the novel), so there is sufficient evidence of the legend being recorded. 198.181.156.132 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. "Tyler tells the Narrator that this is the greatest moment of the Narrator’s life. The Narrator imagines himself in Ireland, on a trip he took after he left college. During this trip he visited the Blarney Stone, but instead of kissing it, he urinated on it. This small act of rebellion, the Narrator thinks, might have been his first yearning for anarchy and chaos.". Maybe this can be put in a "In popular media"-section? Poveglia (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth and Blarney

This story is prima facie flawed. Why would QE say someone was giving her "a lot of blarney" if the legend of the stone did not already exist? The Blarney Castle webpage gives a cleaner acccount, suggesting that McCarthy was giving her "Blarney". (Though even this story seems lacking.)--Rickogorman 17:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not clear to me why the owner of the castle would have stuck the Stone up under the battlements there, nor how we know that the one tourists are encouraged to kiss is actually the right one. It looks like all the other stones along the bottom of the battlements to me.--Srleffler 21:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing method

I'd like to see some information about how and why you're meant to kiss it in that awkward position. Gemfyre 06:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Stones

Surely there are Blarney knock-offs. If anyone knows of tourist attractions similar to the Blarney Stone (stones that you are supposed to kiss for some reason), I feel the article should have a list of them. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The town of Shamrock, TX claims to have a fragment of the Blarney Stone. There is a monument and plenty of tourist information on this, is it enough to list it here? 71.164.160.112 (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come?

Blarney Castle originally dates from before AD 1200. It was destroyed in 1446. That's according to the Castle article.
This Blarney Stone articles says "The stone was set into a tower of the castle in 1446."
So, was the stone set in the tower just before the tower was destroyed? How di it get back years later into the new castle?
Or is this "history" all Blarney? (Sarah777 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The castle article also says that the castle was "subsequently" rebuilt after it was destroyed. It seems reasonable that the Stone might have been placed in the battlements during the reconstruction. It's not clear how much time elapsed between destruction and reconstruction, however. This article is sorely lacking in real history with reliable sources, not the blarney from the castle's proprietors.--Srleffler (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bannockburn too late

The Stone of Destiny was taken from Scotland in 1296, the Battle of Bannockburn was not faught until 1314 - so the bit of Rock the Bruce gave to the Irish could not have been from the same stone. Also, are there any sources for Irish aid at Bannockburn? I've never come across any source mentioning Irish at the battle at all - Donnachadh mac Alasdair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Robert the Bruce considered the absence of the Irish to be help enough. Seriously, though - even aside the chronological problem, the Blarney Stone isn't even of the same material as the Stone of Scone: igneous bluestone vs. sedimentary sandstone - they could in no way, shape or form ever have belonged to the same rock. 62.158.89.118 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this "theory" is (as pointed out) as full of holes as the other stories listed, it is - possibly - appropriate to list them. The origins wording did seem to give prominence to this one theory however, and this didn't seem appropriate, so I have moved it down to sit with all the other "stories". Guliolopez (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for Clíodhna?

Most of the nonsense in the first section should be removed. The proprietors appear to have made up a great deal of it to attract as many visitors as possible. By far the most well known story actually involves the goddess Clíodhna, which can be found in numerous reliable sources. I will try to give the story soon. DinDraithou (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material and unreliable sources

This is the new Wikipedia, in case anyone is not aware, and material must be reliably sourced. The website for the castle is not a reliable source, and the proprietors, however well meaning, have nothing whatsoever to do with the original builders. I happen to be a kinsman of the MacCarthy family and know what are not the traditions concerning the stone and castle. I have sourced the story involving Clíodhna, who is the fairy woman of the MacCarthys, and if necessary can source it yet still more. I'm sorry if anyone is attached to the nonsense they were used to seeing here but it cannot stay unless properly sourced. DinDraithou (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. DinDraithou (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "proprietor's website" is not the only source which refs the "Stone of Scone" legend. (See "Menhirs, dolmen, and circles of stone: the folklore and magic of sacred stone" (Varner) or "Castles of the celtic lands: the historic castles of Ireland, Scotland and Wales" (Castleden) or other RS sources.) Removing all myths - save for the one you happen to like the best - isn't the way to go. It's all myth and bluster. In a way none of it meets RS - coz it's all claptrap. That said, the most common (and RS supported) myths should be listed. Not one over another. Save for some cleanup, the current "origins" section content is probably fine. Guliolopez (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Properly source the passage soon or I'll remove it again. The rest is already gone. DinDraithou (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs for Stone of Scone myth. Agree with decision to RM the other "stories" - given limited sources. Guliolopez (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external links are also extremely poor 64.180.204.57 (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the Stone : Scientific testing of a sample

A report in the Guardian newspaper, 16 March 2014 says that The Hunterian Museum (attached to the University of Glasgow) has examined a slide of a sample taken in between 1850-1880 from the stone by Prof Mathhew Forster Heddle of St Andrews Uiversity, a pioneer in mineral science. The Hunterian have determined the stone to be made of limestone local to the area. --31.54.229.217 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)"Geologists at the University of Glasgow's Hunterian Museum can reveal the true nature of the Stone after studying the historic microscope slide, containing a slice of the stone ground so thin that it is transparent to light. Their analysis indicates the Blarney is a limestone, made of the mineral calcite, and containing recrystallised and slightly deformed fragments of fossil brachiopod shells and bryozoans – all of which are unique to the region where it is based." 31.54.229.217 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blarney Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blarney Stone in Texas

A block of Blarney Stone can be found in Shamrock, Texas encased in a concrete pillar. In 1959, it was brought to Texas while being escorted by guards and an armored truck. The Blarney Stone Plaza can be found at 210 N. Main Street in Shamrock, Texas. 72.190.5.124 (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If the purpose of your note is to request that someone add a short note to the article (to reflect this statement/claim), please provide some reliable references/evidences to support it. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]