Talk:Bluestone

Comment

This article should be deleted, as bluestone is just another name for basalt for which there is already an article. (125.209.153.134 13:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

bluestone is not even close to being basalt it is a unique sandstone found onnly in a few hundred square miles of pa. and Ny my name is Bill and I'm a quarryman and bluestone is not basalt. Bluestone (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Article should be deleted. Bluestone is a quarrymens name, not a geologists, and is used for many petrologically different stones. Thus the 'Bluestones' of Stonehenge include different rock types, not just spotted dolerites or diabases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.59.115 (talk • contribs) 12:15, December 12, 2006

Pennsylvania and New York

"Bluestone from Pennsylvania and New York is commercially known as Pennsylvania bluestone." I know some bluestone sold around here (Chicago area) is sold as 'New York bluestone'. How accurate is the above quoted sentence? --Kalmia 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Bluestone (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)bluestone any editing question please contact

Major Revision

This wholesale revision is the result of my personal visits to a number of bluestone quarries, talking with an ASTM colleague from Australia and some colleagues from the British Geological Survey. To answer the above questions, bluestone is NOT just another name for basalt, and bluestone is usually sold as bluestone and not Pennsylvania Bluestone (or New York Bluestone). To wrap things up, I have asked ASTM C18.91 to redo the bluestone definition thusly: "Bluestone is (1) a feldspathic sandstone (US), or (2) a dolerite (Brit), or a basalt (Aussie)." Given the extensive bluestone quarrying in the U.S., Stongehenge, and the scads of historic bluestone buildings in Victoria (try Googling on it), this is the best solution. I anticipate ASTM approval after several ballots that may give us additional information. Bmhtayl 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this article

I found this useful when trying to find out what "bluestone" is when it wasn't listed as such in any of my guides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.176.168 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is useful and should be kept. The requests for deletion presume that geological information is the only useful information about stone, but this is not correct. I would add, however, that even in Australia the term bluestone is not used uniformly - in Adelaide/South Australia it is quite a different material than in Melbourne/Victoria (I don't know what, exactly). 124.180.117.48 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph (and a reference) about South Australian bluestone, which is completely different in appearance and geological origin from Victorian bluestone. Peter Bell (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

The image at the top of this article shows sarsen stones at Stonehenge, not the smaller bluestones, which are in a surrounding circle. I have replaced it with an image of the Carn menyn bluestones. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Moot Point

The caption said it was a moot point whether the rocks were moved by humans or glacial action. A moot point is an irrelevant point. Changed the text to say unresolved point, which captures the author's intended meaning without getting sucked down into an argument about evolving language use: http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Stonehenge is British. In Britain, a moot point is one that's up for debate. Iapetus (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Stonehenge

The article states "Preseli bluestone tools, such as axes, have been discovered all over the British Isles. Many of them appear to have been made in or near Stonehenge, since there are petrographic similarities with some of the spotted dolerites there." But the dolerites were brought in from the Preseli Hills, 250 miles away (i.e. not nearby), and no similar blue stones have not been found anywhere near Stonehenge — so does this not rather mean that the axes were instead made near the Preseli Hills? Tarian.liber (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this may be so, but in an encyclopedia we look for facts cited to reliable sources. BTW, your addition to the article is cited to YouTube which in itself is not a reliable source. I will tag it as such. I will also put some pointers to how Wikipedia works on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that Youtube is never a reliable source, or that the particular Youtube video I cited is not a reliable source? Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources states that "However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." It was my view, when I cited this particular National Geographic Channel video, that it met those criteria. Is this not the case?Tarian.liber (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine cite the National Geographic Channnel programme - do not cite Youtube. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have done. I have provided a link to the relevant episode page on the National Geographic web site, and also amended the Youtube link to clarify that this is what the video is. Unfortunately, the National Geographic link does not contain the full video of the episode, and I cannot find a video on their site containing the relevant part of the episode. However, the full video of the episode is on Youtube, and in the parts which I can find on the National Geographic web site, the two videos agree (i.e. the Youtube video appears to be clearly authentic). I'm not sure whether National Geographic videos are publicly available online, as I don't watch them, and I'm also not sure about the copyright status of the Youtube video. I'm not sure at this point what else to do, so I'll leave it at that and maybe someone else will have a better idea.Tarian.liber (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The YouTube video is clearly a copyright breach, as it is not on an official NG YouTube channel. I have removed that reference. As you don't have access to the original programme it will be difficult for you to properly cite this. You should look for printed books or other sources that support this statement. Otherwise remove it. The correct way to cite videos is shown here and here. Specifically director narrator, production company, date of original broadcast, timing in episode where statement occurs, etc. The cite as it stands is insufficient, just being a generally unsupported statement in the documentary, with no attribution as to where it is supported by truly reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Antwerp Quays

The Antwerp article mentions:

The old Belgian bluestone quays bordering the Scheldt for a distance of 3.5 miles (5.6 km) to the north and south of the city centre...

Is this the limestone from the Hainaut quarries in Soignies, Belgium? As the Antwerp article links here it would be good to mention this here. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Bluestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130502033832/http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/who-built-stonehenge/ to http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/episodes/who-built-stonehenge/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Pennsylvania Bluestone

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge . -INeedSupport- ^:3 22:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Not notable enough for stand alone article seems to be promoting a product too, judging by recent conflict of interest editing and sock puppetry. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

agreed, this page is spamming the search engines indexes with irrelevant garbageStevenvieczorek (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge Pennsylvania Bluestone into Bluestone, leaving behind a redirect. David notMD (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I would assume you mean merge anything salvageable from the Pennsylvania Bluestone article into this more general article on various usages of the term bluestone. The header and some of the comments and wording above sorta indicates the opposite. I would support merging what remains of the Pennsylvania Bluestone article into this general article. Vsmith (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with you - merge/move anything salvageable from PB into the United States & Canada section of the Bluestone article. I've already done some of that, but not experienced in what to do with the PB article. David notMD (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Speedy Merge: The article has been a stub with very little sourced information for over a decade. -INeedSupport- ^:3 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

text is cut and paste from the single reference and the use of the text is a violation of the reference sites terms. Page should be deleted immediatly.Stevenvieczorek (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. Very high copyright violation indicated with http://757brick.com/hardscapes-2/bluestone/ David notMD (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that has probably been copied from Wikipedia? Theroadislong (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I agree that what happened here is a copy from Wikipedia, used by a stone business without attribution. Supporting evidence is that that website's content on Travertine is an exact copy from Wikipedia article on Travertine. David notMD (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This page will be deletedStevenvieczorek (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion is only heading to one direction. It's time to either merge the article or delete it. I recommend a merge though. -INeedSupport- ^:3 18:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stonehenge transportation revisited

I revised the Stonehenge transportation question into glacial erratic and human transportation subsections. I firmly believe the latter is correct, but did not want to delete the content and references for the former, as it seems to have its share of believers.

Also deleted the two COI tags at the top, as the editor in question since blocked. David notMD (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: did you check whether the COI editor's changes to this article have all been reverted? The {{Connected contributor}} template is useful to warn editors that some of the article may have been introduced by an editor with a COI. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: The questionable editing took place Jan 30 to Feb 1, 2019, by three editors (two suspected sock puppets of the other, all blocked), and all those changes were reverted. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggest split

This article appears to be about two unrelated uses of the term "bluestone":

1. a term for various kinds of stone used for construction
2. a term used by archaeologists for stones found at an archaeological site which are alien to the local geology

So I suggest we split the article into "Bluestone (building material)" and "Bluestone (archaeology)", with a dab left at "Bluestone" (as neither seems to be obvious "primary topic"). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This Just In ...Update to UK Origin

I don't have the resources to attack this problem. At this time, however, I would at least think the Origin question is being revisited once again.

At present, the article finishes the section on UK origin with "Further, no independent evidence has ever been found to support the thesis of long overland or sea transport of Preseli bluestones from Wales to Salisbury Plain." I just read an article that appears to state that a new discovery casts doubt on the statement above. it is located at The Conversation. -- Srwalden (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)