Talk:Blarney Stone (Texas Tech)

Sourcing problem
Note that this article lacks any reliable sources for the claim that the stone is a piece of the Blarney Stone, and it is rather doubtful that this claim is true. Publications by the university itself and its student organizations are not independent, and so do not satisfy Verifiability. Such sources can be used to document campus traditions, however, since organizations are considered good sources of information about themselves under certain conditions.--Srleffler (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While independent tests likely could be done to see if the stone is consistent with the one in Ireland, as far as I known, none have ever been undertaken. Even then, it still would only be circumstantial, rather than conclusive, evidence. Nevertheless, the article is about the tradition rather than about whether the stone is a genuine piece of the original Blarney Stone. I think your edits help to make that more obvious. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi guys. Totally agree. I had tempered some of the wording here previously to highlight that it was tradition/myth/whatever that held it was a piece of the Blarney Stone - rather than verifiable fact. Frankly I doubt any scientific tests will ever be performed on the stone at Lubbock - probably because it's likely to be a longstanding bit of hokum/fun. That said, given that the traditions surrounding the "original stone" are also a long(er)standing bit of hokum/fun, I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that. So long as, as noted, this article is written in a way that ensures the reader can recognise that. Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)