Talk:Yaquina Bay Light

message: Oops that was EncMstr, not me who fixed and  tagged that sentence. Sorry!!! (It seemed like something I would do...) Katr67 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was you too!  —EncMstr 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summary 

message: This was added to the article, but has several issues, particularly reliable sources.  Since it is expressed as "legend", perhaps a separate section is good enough?
—EncMstr 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a popular legend, but it seems to have originated as a fictional story back in 1899. Still, there have been mysterious happenings there. I think it's OK to say the place is subject of a legend (without recounting the whole tale in the article--external link it instead) and that people have supposedly seen mysterious lights, etc. But yes, needs reliable sources (and not the dozen or so ghost-hunting and UFO sites I turned up). The pdxhistory or Statesman Journal articles would work. Katr67 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see the legend is linked in the article already. If someone expands on the haunting that is already mentioned in the article, be sure it is not to be redundant. Katr67 01:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In response to "redundant", what I meant was: Please read the article and make sure what you add to it isn't repeating what is already said in the article. This is simply a good writing practice. The article already mentioned the ghost story, so that part should have been taken out when the new material was added. Now let me look at your additions because it's been a couple weeks since we discussed it above, and then I'll respond to what I think you should do next. We really are trying to help you, that's why we are discussing it on this page rather than deleting it and not saying anything. It's part of the process here--it's tedious but it usually yields good results. Katr67 23:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the main issue as stated above, is the section lacks reliable sources. Unfortunately, interviewing park service employees is original research, so any new info you learned that's not able to be cited will have to be left out until citations can be found. Also, it "may even have been a story" isn't true--I think it's pretty clear the legend stems from the 1899 story and that this should be stated first thing when discussing the legend. Katr67 23:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I was planning to rework your entry and restore it to the article (you know it isn't lost, but is in the page history, right?) But did you read the part about original research? I don't doubt your integrity, but unless you get your research published somewhere else, we can't use it. You're absolutely right about the credibility angle and we treat everyone from conspiracy theory crackpots and college professors the same way--if you can't cite a source, the information is subject to removal. And it's my turn to be confused because the link to the 1899 story has been in the article this whole time. Do you mean an actual scan of the story?  Katr67 20:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trevenard legend