Talk:Sand Key Light

message: I was out boating this past weekend, and the depth chart maps clearly show Sand Key is much farther south than Ballast Key, which claims to be the southernmost point in Florida in its article.  Is it because the land of Sand Key has disappeared a few times from hurricanes?  There's land there now, so shouldn't the Southernmost point in Florida designation go to Sand Key?   Here's a link that clearly shows land is there Sand Key reef aerial.
I see how the article Extreme points of the United States#48 contiguous states says that several sand bars are at least 7 km farther south and exposed at low tide, but this wasn't low tide it was midway between low & high and the sand bar was clearly exposed.  If it is covered at high tide does that exclude it from being considered land?  What if it continues to build up and is exposed even at high tide?  I'm not sure any source exists for this since it seems to change its status with every passing storm.  It seems that if there is land there most of the time then it should be considered land.
Another point - the depth chart on my father's boat (about a year old) has Sand Key marked as a small island and has it filled in yellow just as other islands on the chart are.  This clearly indicates that the map company considers Sand Key to be an island.   -   Marc Averette 16:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't [[Sand Key Light|Sand Key]] considered the southernmost point of land in Florida? 

message: Note that the reference to "Florida Lighthouse Page - Sand Key Lighthouse" is dead. Someone should fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.5.165 (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead reference link 

message: Copied from my talk page:
, interestingly, the first source you linked to, the Sand Key Lighthouse page at the U. S. Coast Guard Historian's Office, says, "Rebecca Flaherty was keeper for 16 years following the death of her husband in 1830. The Great Havana Hurricane of 1846 eroded the sand so badly around the light; it collapsed, killing Rebecca Flaherty and five others." Basically the same story appears in Florida Lighthouses by Kevin McCarthy (University of Florida Press, 1990), and in Reef Lights by Love Dean (The Historic Key West Preservation Board, 1982). Dean provides footnotes, sourcing the story of Rebecca Flaherty's tenure as keeper and her death in the loss of the lighthouse in 1846 to "Sand Key Lighthouse File, Monroe County Public Library, Key West, Florida" and "Sand Key Light-station, Clipping File, Record Group No. 26, National Archives, Washington, D.C." McCarthy may have picked up the story from Dean (McCarthy does not name sources for his book), but Dean cites original records. On the other hand, the keepers' list on the USCG page shows Rebecca Flaherty being replaced as keeper sometime in the 1830s, with Joshua Appleby serving as keeper from 1837 until his death in 1846. Unfortunately, Thomas Taylor does not cite any sources for his article in the The Keeper's Log. 
We have a conflict here between sources. I will post in WikiProject Lighthouses to see if anyone who works on lighthouse articles is willing to help sort this out. - Donald Albury 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As I replied to you on my talk page, material added to Wikipedia articles must meet the requirements of policies, including :Wikipedia:Verifiability, :Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and :Wikipedia:No original research. Any documents you possess, or know of, cannot be used to support material in a Wikipedia article, unless they have been discussed in a reliable, published, source. We must be satisfied that the Lighthouse Society article is acceptable as a reliable source, and then how much weight to give that article against the other sources, per the policy at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. That is why I am hoping for input from other experienced editors. - Donald Albury 23:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I certainly agree with  that 's information, while probably true, should be considered WP:OR, I would also say sources are contradictory. If I would to judge, I think Taylor has the right story, but I am not to judge because that is also WP:OR. I think the best thing is to keep the facts we are certain of in the body and add a note, as I did in this version of the document. I think this is both a good compromise and the most encyclopedically correct solution, but I don't really feel like arguing my point, so feel free to revert me and keep arguing. --Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm fine with your solution. I have done similar things in other articles, presenting alternative versions when reliable sources supporting each version are cited. - Donald Albury 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

text: This is not the place for a lengthy explanation, and I will probably not do as good a job as the "no original research" page already does, so my suggestion is to start there and if something is still unclear leave me a note at my talk page and I will be happy to explain. --Muhandes (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

text: , please note that the Scholarship section of the policy on reliable sources restricts the use of master's theses or dissertations. I understand that it can be frustrating to know something, but not be able to add it to a Wikipedia article because it has not yet been published in a reliable source. The best we can do is hope that the information will eventually appear in a reputable source. - Donald Albury 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keeper in 1846