Talk:The Spooklight

Oklahoma, not Missouri; Citation Needed for Army Corps of Engineers report

First of all this isn't a Missouri related entry so that needs to be changed. The lights are in Oklahoma, and OKLAHOMA only. They can not be seen from Missouri.

Secondly, we need a citation for the claim that the light was studied by the Army C of E. I've read this claim all over the internet but find it hard to beilieve that in corps was ever in the area to "study the light". Where would we find such records if they exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.60.205 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

These things are all over the place, NOT just Missouri. Find them all over the planet. A few US locations are Marfa, Texas, Gurdon, Arkansas, Brown Mountain. Martial Law 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC) :)

Real People

Perhaps we should add a section detailing the involvement of the NBC TV show 'Real People' in the early 1980s. As I recall, they sent John Barbour and a camera crew out to document the light for an annual Halloween episode, although one website lists the episode as premiering on Dec. 2, 1982. Anchor Tony Beason and a support crew from NBC affiliate KYTV Channel 3 from Springfield, MO accompanied them. When the light actually appeared, the camera batteries for the NBC crew failed, but the KY3 cameras managed to capture the light. The resulting footage seemed to have quite an effect on the show's hosts. (As an aside, Beason got a kick out of how one of the cameramen from California totally freaked out when he found a tick on his arm. He had never seen one before!)

As for the theory that it is simply highway lights, it should be mentioned that accounts of the light date back well before the construction of the area's highways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.132.92 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bizzare properties

• Chases people
• Emits infrared radiation (the ref. about it getting hot and burning people)
• Invades autos, other OPs (A OP is "Observation Platform).

Can that be added ? 65.163.115.114 (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think that Spooklight should become a disambiguation page since there are other spooklights in the S. USA that have articles/may soon have articles.

• Hornet ghost light of Missouri-Oklahoma stateline (also known just as the spooklight).
• Ozark spooklight of Missouri
• Surrency Spooklight of Georgia

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No longer necessary. I renamed the article to "The Spooklight" so that "Spooklights" could be freed up for general use. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

As a scientific explanation for the spooklight has been found, I think it would be good to include at least a sentence referencing that somewhere up top. No reference to the verified explanation is in the article until the very bottom, even after other explanations are put forth. 108.171.131.165 (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Uses Same Photo as Another Page

There is another Wikipedia page about the "Paulding Light", which includes the same image. They are not the same thing. I do not know which one includes the correct picture. Not that it really matters because they're both about ghost lights, but still one of them is using a falsely attributed image. 2603:7080:1800:4400:540A:C217:5707:2B0D (talk) 03:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not falsely attributed. The caption says, The Paulding Light is a "spooklight" in Michigan that is also caused by misidentification of car headlights on an aligned road. Geogene (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Geogene And using it on a page about a different ghost light is, at the least, misleading. Mastakos (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

In what way is it misleading? Both are car headlights. Geogene (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Geogene It doesn't matter what the picture is of, or is believed to be of. A picture of one place/"phenomenon" shouldn't be used for a different one as well just because you think they're the same thing. Any picture should be directly relevant to the page it is posted to, not any and every page that has similar phenomena. Thats like putting a picture of a dalmation on the greyhound page, then saying its relevant because they're both dogs. Mastakos (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what the picture is of, or is believed to be of. What do you mean, "believed" to be of? Sources say that both of these "phenomena" are headlights. [1] You apparently don't think that, but that doesn't matter.
• just because you think they're the same thing Again, sources say they are the same thing. It's your own individual "thinking" that is the problem here, not mine.
• Any picture should be directly relevant to the page It is.
• Thats like putting a picture of a dalmation on the greyhound page That is nothing like what's going on here.
• A thread is open on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard; this conversation should be held there. Geogene (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I opened an FTNB thread here [2]. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@2603:7080:1800:4400:540A:C217:5707:2B0D I agree the photo should be removed from this page, it does not belong anywhere except Paulding. Mastakos (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I also agree the Paulding Light photo should be removed from the article or at least as the lead image. Keeping it violates MOS:LEADIMAGE, MOS:LEADELEMENTS, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and WP:RELNOT. This is currently causing search engines such as Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo to falsely pass off the Paulding light photo as being that of The Spooklight. Instead, a link to the Paulding Light article should be added to the See also section and the Template:Photo_requested placed at the top to encourage someone to find and upload a topic-specific Spooklight image. There is WP:NORUSH to find a photo. 5Q5|^✉ 13:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

None of those are relevant here except for MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which explicitly doesn't require authenticity Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. For example, a painting of a cupcake may be an acceptable image for Cupcake, but a real cupcake that has been decorated to look like something else entirely is less appropriate. Similarly, an image of a generic-looking cell under a light microscope might be useful on multiple articles, as long as there are no visible differences between the cell in the image and the typical appearance of the cell being illustrated.. According to that I could use a staged photo of any distant light against a dark background and it would be usable, as long as it "looks like" a genuine photo of the Spooklight (which let me remind you is not a paranormal phenomenon). I can use any generic picture of car headlights, as long as it looks like "authentic" Spooklight photos on the web.

Also you were told at FTNB that your objections had been answered with MOS and that you should "drop the stick". [3] Geogene (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My question to you at FTNB was not answered. You have not provided even one example of another Wikipedia article where the lead image doesn't "illustrate the topic specifically" as required by MOS:LEADIMAGE. You keep bringing up the cupcake painting similarity as justification. That would apply here only if the lead image was a painting of The Spooklight and accurately represented it. Wikipedia would be thrown into chaos if articles were suddenly allowed to use lead images that are only similar looking to the topic. For example, many skin cancers look similar, but to be encyclopedic Wikipedia can only display a genuine photo or drawing of each one as the lead image. So far I count three editors in this discussion who support removing the Paulding Light photo from the Spooklight article and only one who opposes. 5Q5|^✉ 13:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We provided you with the manual of style which is more authoritative than any number of WP:OSE links. Simonm223 (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: So far I count three editors in this discussion who support removing the Paulding Light photo I count one established editor, a brand new account with less than 100 edits, and some drive-by IPs with no other contributions. Geogene (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation and Google Partnership expects Wikipedia to provide accurate content. Currently Google search results, as well as results in other search engines, are falsely displaying the Paulding Light photo as being the Spooklight and will continue to do so until the Paulding Light photo is removed from The Spooklight article. See also this 2022 press release and this Wikipedia article: Relationship between Google and Wikipedia. 5Q5|^✉ 14:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If search engines are scraping and redisplaying Wiki content in an allegedly misleading fashion, then it seems to me that it's the search engines who are editing the content, and so it's the search engines you seem to be finding fault with, and not this article. Also see the General Disclaimers at Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and Policy:Wikimedia General Disclaimer, and here is contact info for the WMF if you want to run this by them, since quasi-legal debate about how content is reused is more appropriate for them. Geogene (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:5P2, it's the responsibility of all Wikipedia editors to strive for accuracy and leave out personal interpretations. 5Q5|^✉ 15:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is grasping at straws and becoming tedious WP:DROPTHESTICK. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is completely accurate, and there are no personal interpretations. Geogene (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the image should be removed. It’s just a light on a dark background, which conveys nothing useful. The only thing that appears to be distinctive, which is quite hard to make out, is the outline of trees and utility poles, which would be unique to the setting of the Paulding Light.--Trystan (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's a light against a dark background. That is what the Spooklight is: car headlights as seen from a country road several miles away. It illustrates the topic perfectly. Geogene (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Googling images for the Spooklight and the Paulding Light show many potential better options. An image could show the forest and road more clearly (which looks quite different between the locations of the Spooklight and Paulding Light). It could show people watching the light, emphasizing the local-folklore aspect of the phenomenon. It could be a picture through a telescope showing car headlights distinctly. Any of those options (if we can find or make one with appropriate copyright) would illustrate some aspect of the article. A circle of light on a black background illustrates nothing. The minimal detail it includes isn't relevant to this article. It should be removed here. I'd only be borderline in favour of keeping it at Paulding Light on MOS:IMAGEQUALITY grounds.--Trystan (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images can't be used if there's a possibility that a free replacement could be made, so none of those better options are useable. The current image is currently the best available. Geogene (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

If no better image is available, this article should have no image. MOS:IMAGEQUALITY says: Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. ... An image of a white-tailed eagle is useless if the bird appears as a speck in the sky. Comparison to other online images of the Spooklight and Paulding Light demonstrates this image is extremely poor quality, even when allowing that the subject may be difficult to capture photographically. Given that it isn't even of the subject in question, there is no way its inclusion on this page is "absolutely necessary". We may as well use the image to illustrate Rover 14, because it is indistinguishable from what that car would look like at night from 10 miles away.--Trystan (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no images that exist anywhere that show the Spooklight as being anything more than just a light on a dark background. Because the Spooklight is exactly that. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, that is what is required to illustrate the topic. Trees and power poles are irrelevant. Expecting to see more than a distant light against a dark background is like asking why we don't have clearer photos than File:House Dust Orbs.jpg in Backscatter (photography). Geogene (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree that context (local geography, people, telescope etc.) would be irrelevant to MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, but even if I did, that would just lead to the conclusion that there is nothing to meaningfully illustrate. It's not an illustrative aid to understanding, and not every article needs images (MOS:IMAGEREL).

I've stated my position; count me among the majority of editors in this discussion supporting removal. Please ping me if you start and RFC as proposed.--Trystan (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)