This article is ratedStub-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

OregonLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theU.S. state ofOregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. The currentcollaborations of the month areWomen's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed atOregon Women of Achievement (modern) orWomen of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). National Register of Historic PlacesLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.historic sites listed on theNational Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. LighthousesMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Lighthouses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oflighthouses and other waternavigational aids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LighthousesWikipedia:WikiProject LighthousesTemplate:WikiProject LighthousesLighthouses Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale.

Oops that was EncMstr, not me who fixed and{{fact}} tagged that sentence. Sorry!!! (Itseemed like something I would do...)Katr6723:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was you too! —EncMstr00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was added to the article, but has several issues, particularlyreliable sources. Since it is expressed as "legend", perhaps a separate section is good enough?

—EncMstr00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's apopular legend, but it seems to have originated as afictional 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.Katr6701:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Katr6701:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I wrote the Muriel Trevenard piece shortly after visiting Yaquina Bay Lighthouse and interviewing Park Employees, all of whom asked that their names not be used. I went to pains to express it as local legend and local lore and went to so far as to photograph (as best I could)the "log room" and came here to post the photographs only to find the work deleted. What, essentially, is the issue that led to the deletion of this work? Any Oregon State Parks employee will tell you that it is just a ghost story and that it is not true. Links to the story do not provide the exact information as related by the Parks employees I spoke to and they all admit it was just a story concocted for a Halloween edition of the local paper. I resent the term "redundant". There was nothing about the work that was redundant and actions like these make it very difficult to support Wikipedia so some clarification would now be necessary.Sweet Talker22:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.Katr6723:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the main issue as stated above, is the section lacks reliable sources. Unfortunately, interviewing park service employees isoriginal 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.Katr6723:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. I came here in good faith to relate what I believe is interesting and necessary piece of the lighthouse's history. The story, as it can be linked from other websites, contains hosts of incomplete or just slapped together information. That was one of the reasons for my trips out to Yaquina Bay which will be getting more difficult as the rainy season descends on the Pac Northwest. If there is a link that shows the actual 1899 article, I'd be all for it. I cannot find it. As for the claim that the "log room" includes the trap door, I have not found that in any online research. The basement of the lighthouse itself houses the gift shop and a small "theatre" of sorts with bench seats in which a video history of the lighthouse is shown in a loop for interested people. It is on that video that mention is made of the mysterious trap door.

My last trip to the lighthouse was to photograph the "lamp room" as best I could. It's on the "third floor" as were and where the iron rung steps to the lamp room (boarded off for safety reasons)are located. The "log room" is right before the ladder to the lamp room and it is Plexiglased off. It's more of a eaves room or closet storage than a real room despite the fact that it houses a small bed, a desk, an officer's hat, a small lamp and a log book. In times past, the trap door was always closed. On my last trip, the door was ajar and I don't know if that is a vanity on the part of Oregon Parks to encourage the "pirates secret passageway" part of the Trevenard ghost story.

I understand everyone's vehemence in keeping Wikipedia credible due to its somewhat dubious reputation as a reliable online encyclopedia and I applaud that in some small way, but my contribution just wasn't slapped on here. I've explored, photographed and financially donated to this lighthouse for the past six years. So this wasn't some attempt to cavalierly add some reference to something I heard in conversation in a backhanded manner. A major part of the lighthouse's history is this ghost story. It needs to be told and in a comprehensive, factual yet interesting way. Let me know if you want files of the photographs.Sweet Talker19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 aboutoriginal 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?Katr6720:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Talker22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)No, I haven't published my work yet. Tried to. Coastal Living has yet to respond back. I must be using the wrong terminology as well. Yes, I meant a bona fide scan of the actual story. Either I'm looking in all the wrong places or it no longer exists but I haven't exhausted all of my sources in Oregon yet. Besides the "citing sources", how in the world do you cite a source if all you have (the reprinted story notwithstanding)are links to websites that provide spotty information. I still believe that this is a viable and needful section of the page. While poking around the Yaquina Bay giftshop (looking for whatever book I haven't already bought) no less than five people asked about the ghost story. The volunteer behind the counter was obviously new because she just muffed the whole thing up. The video and the old salts who greet you at the door of the lighthouse know each and every corner of the dwelling and set any number of people straight but folks are interested in the ghost story because they've heard it somewhere. Do you want the photographs of the Log Room? PS. Oregon Parks employees at the lighthouse are vehement that, despite the published newspaper story, the Trevenard ghost story is a made up story. They don't explain the trap door in the log room but they are admamant that the story is made up.[reply]

• Stub-Class Oregon articles
• Low-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• Stub-Class National Register of Historic Places articles
• Low-importance National Register of Historic Places articles
• Stub-Class National Register of Historic Places articles of Low-importance
• Stub-Class Lighthouses articles
• Mid-importance Lighthouses articles
• WikiProject Lighthouses articles