Talk:Earthquake light

RfC: How should earthquakes lights be categorized?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Option C

There is a strong consensus, both in the survey and the threaded discussion, to describe the theory that earthquakes cause lights in the sky as an unsettled question. LightlySeared (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

How should the theory that earthquakes cause lights in the sky be categorized?

• Option A: Mainstream science
• Option B: Fringe theory
• Option C: Unsettled question
• Option D: Something else (please explain in detail)

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples

• Examples of Mainstream science include Diamagnetism, Cherenkov radiation, Geodesy, and Evolution. Policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY do not apply. Related fringe topics such as Flat Earth are generally left out of the article.
• Examples of fringe theories include Flood geology, 21 grams experiment, Flat Earth, and Torsion field. Policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY apply. Related mainstream science topics such as History of Earth are generally prominently mentioned and linked to.
• Examples of unsettled questions include Dark matter, Mpemba effect, Magnetic monopoles, and The Hum. Policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY apply if skeptical sources categorize the question as fringe or pseudoscience, but must be attributed and not used while excluding WP:SCIRS sources.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Ground Rules

Because of the history of disruption on this topic, editors are asked to abide by the following voluntary ground rules. If you disagree with any of these rules, post your objection in the threaded discussion section. If there appears to be consensus for the change, an administrator will be asked to evaluate the consensus and modify the ground rules as appropriate.

• No incivility or personal attacks. In fact, it would be best to avoid saying anything about any editor. Stick to the RfC questions and post your personal comments somewhere else.
• Do not attempt to dominate the discussion. If you are about to repeat a point you made before, don't. If you have posted more comments than anyone else, slow down. If your post count is over twice that of whoever is in second place, just stop.
• This RfC is only about whether earthquakes cause lights in the sky. If this confuses you, please read Correlation does not imply causation before posting.
• One post per editor in the survey section. Any editor is invited to move any second post to the threaded discussion section, as allowed by WP:TPOC. Consider using the {{Moved discussion from}} template. If you see someone replying in the survey section, do not reply in the survey section. Reply in the threaded discussion.
• No editing the RfC outside of the threaded discussion an survey sections by anyone involved. Propose changes in the threaded discussion section and let an administrator make the change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• Option C: Unsettled question. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. No reliable sources characterize earthquake lights as psuedoscience or fringe, so it would fail WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR to characterize it as that in the article.Katzrockso (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. If we have to ask, then WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED applies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• All of the above. fiveby(zero) 19:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. There's no doubt that people have reported seeing lights in contexts they associate with earthquakes. Whether these reports are describing anything with some sort of causal relationship with said earthquakes is clearly undetermined. There have been multiple attempts to explain such reports of lights in scientific terms, though none of the explanations seems to have been seen as particularly persuasive: not least because of a lack of real data (as opposed to anecdotes) to test such explanations against. One could argue that the explanations are 'fringe science' in that they are very much a minority pursuit, but there doesn't seem to be any overall 'fringe theory' being pushed. As long as the article makes it entirely clear that whether there is a real phenomenon at all is still an open question, and as long as the article avoids giving undue prominence to primary-source 'explanations' which seem to take it as read that the lights are real, our readers can be left to decide for themselves how much credibility to attach to it all. 'Nobody really knows' is a perfectly credible way to present a topic, and in this case the only justifiable one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C "Unsettled questions" per quality sources. The WP:FRINGE position would be these questions are settled (in any direction). Bon courage (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C Unsettled question Google Scholar features many many sources treating these as potentially real, and offering many hypotheses. Some sources mention or actually show photographs of alleged earthquake lights (e.g this one, not a very good one though), and some folks have attempted to catalogue them while discarding probable lightning and other confounders . This is clearly not fringe or made-up, but similar to ball lightning where there are many observations including photos, physical theories but no start-to-finish (as in, theory empirically proven by the scientific method) theory. A bit less reliable than ball lightning perhaps, but I'd call this "unsettled". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C: When editing on UFO topics, I have read news articles in various major newspapers. Earthquake lights sometimes come up as a potential explanation. Major newspapers treat them as an unresolved question, noticeably different from widely-accepted explanations (balloons) or widely-unaccepted explanations (time travelers). Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C: per Thebiguglyalien. JerryGraf (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C with logic similar to AndyTheGrump. There isn't agreement on "does it happen or doesn't it happen" but there is something that can be tested. Red Fiona (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. In agreement with AndyTheGrump. Seems that the topic is unsettled based on the sources in the article that I have checked. Edittttor (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. Caveat, I work on triboelectricity, but will try and stay NPOV. The explanations mentioned in the article are mostly completely valid science which have been tested and verified at the much smaller scale. The WP articles are not all the best, but we do have something on triboluminescence, which does not do enough on fractoluminescence (light from fracture). There are a host of mechanical terms which couple strain and polarization including electrostriction, piezoelectricity and flexoelectricity. There are some newer areas such as the photoflexoelectric effect which have not made WP yet. Hence the underlying science is solid, the uncertainty is which terms dominate. (refs available in request).Ldm1954 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. Earthquake lights are a reported mystery with possible scientific explainations, but not a settled "earthquakes definitely causes lights". So not fringe, not proven, more like "strange lights show up, and science still chewing on why". NicoR8 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. Brought here by RFC/A Neither widely accepted nor widely regarded as fringe. lizthegrey (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m a bit late, but 0.97 of C and 0.03 of B. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 01:11, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

There's a there there, no one knows or agrees for sure what is there, and the article obviously must be agnostic/non-committal neutral to what is or is not there, because it's an unsettled question. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:32, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I think it would be helpful to be more specific. Could editors identify a reference or two, hopefully of highest quality, that support each of the RfC options, if they exist? --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, it will be hard to. I'm pretty sure at least every source used by me and the way I've used it either just detail/describe historic reports and facts about earthquake light history, public belief, and that sort of thing. The rest are just "this is what people think it can be" and a number of "no one knows/unsettled". The entire article is Option C as written right now.

Per @Katzrockso below no worthwhile sources exist at all that support option B - pure nonsense. There may never have been post the 1960s.

As to option A, the research OF earthquake lights is obviously mainstream science if done scientifically, which... no one seems to dispute. The dispute is whether or not the existence OF earthquake lights is universally agreed upon, at all, or what level (which I'm not personally interested in at all).

So every source is either C so far, doesn't actually address the real vs not question whatsoever... and apparently nothing for B or A that matter. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: If helpful: https://web.archive.org/web/20200319031602/https://www.ijgeophysics.ir/article_85871_d26385846fcea66085492b485e3538f1.pdf

I just came across this review paper and have it here now, with apparently a boatload further utility ouf it. I would appear (eyeballing and tossing full text of both the article and the paper into LLMs) that there is around 40-50% overlap already between the two.

Unless I'm crazy, that means that I'm pretty much with what I've been doing on track with mainstream... thinking? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I came across that Iranian Journal of Geophysics article too, but it is published in a fairly low impact-factor journal (169/177 ranked in SCOPUS), so ideally we'd look for something with greater eminence. Katzrockso (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

And a better source can replace it on that particular citation should it turn up, like that one turned up to replace a different reference. It's fine meanwhile to also affirm (as the last one did) that people ascribed these reported phenemena to meteors. That's not us saying it WAS meteors, it's reporting that this was simply once of the theories. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

While I think this specific sentence should be included, this is going about writing the article backwards. We shouldn't check the lowest quality sources and add whatever information might be verifiable in those, but rather look for the highest quality sources and start building the article from what those sources say about the subject, using lower quality sources to fill in the gaps and supplement. Just because something is verifiable doesn't meant it needs to be included (WP:VNOT). Katzrockso (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

But an article also is an interative process, and a useable source is fine until a better one (if it exists) is OK. I'm not saying build it a certain way; I'm simply building it. There's no special rule on how to do basic assembly of different classes of pages. That's all I'm saying. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:BACKWARDS and WP:Sources first both offer good advice on how to write articles, but I would go even further and say that you should start with the WP:BESTSOURCES on the subject.

I don't agree with your statement a useable source is fine until a better one (if it exists) is OK here; just because a source has information and the source is reliable doesn't mean that the information needs to be included on Wikipedia. As I already noted, WP:VNOT explicitly supports this, as well as WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTDB, WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. If you add every bit of trivia or piece of information cited in the lowest-quality, least reliable (but still reliable) sources, an article can become bloated and fail to properly explain the subject by getting bogged down in the minutiae. Katzrockso (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

For example, I found this source Moving on from the genuinely odd, or somewhat suspect, phenomena of Earth Lights we enter still mysterious but extremely well documented earthquake lights (EQLs). Like Earthlights these lay on the fringes of mainstream science for decades but their existence is now becoming more widely accepted. from The Exo-Weather Report (2016), page 173, which I thought be a useful source to add to the existing statements of this information. However, when I looked into the source, I found a mostly negative review that highlighted that the author's background was in biology and the intended audience for the book appeared to be amateurs , so I decided against adding the source in favor of looking for better ones. Katzrockso (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this RfC? As in what article content should or would change as a result of the outcome? fiveby(zero) 19:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

[1] It was requesting by an administrator at WP:ANI.

[2] It determines whether removing skeptical sources, loading up the article with material supporting the theory that earthquakes cause lights in the sky, and deleting or minimizing material suggesting that earthquake lights aren't a thing will be allowed.

[3] It gives you a place to post a joke response in the survey section. Everyone^{[Citation Needed]} loves a good joke. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Well thanks for the opportunity but it wasn't all a joke. Seems like good mainstream science to me, reputably published and taken seriously. There's lots of discussion here about whether EQL are "real" or not and it seems to me that they are "real enough". But WP should be conservative and not out in front of other tertiary sources, there is quite a bit of criticism of observations and as yet no real satisfying theory as to mechanism. And as always there are fringe concerns to watch out for, some mentioned by Hough, amateurs opining, physicist sticking their oar in and maybe not taking into account the work of seismologists, bureaucratic involvement in Japan. And i believe the initial concern you raised at FTN is still valid, even though we have located better sources than the parity ones which have been removed. I thought we were already trending to a C-ish approach in the discussions but maybe best to confirm that. fiveby(zero) 13:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• I strongly agree with AndyTheGrump's comments in the survey section. If, as seems likely, the consensus will be for option C, I would hope that anyone who doesn't think AndyTheGrump's comments reflect the consensus would speak up now rather than after the RfC closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  You will need a 2nd RFC to deal with so many reputable sources saying for years that earth quake lights have been photographed and recorded … they all seem to assert it as real. ~2026-30154-29 (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody disputes that lights have been reported and photographed. The question is whether the earthquakes cause the lights. Photographs cannot answer that question. Feel free to cast a !vote in the survey. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is a good point. For all we know, it's the lights that cause the earthquakes, or some third phenomena causes both. Some of these seem less likely then others, but that would be original research since this seems unsettled for now. That doesn't mean it will always be though. Edittttor (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Not questioning the ground rules, but the format. Can you please move the § Survey section above the § Threaded discussion? As the survey section will remain compact per the rules, and the § Threaded discussion could in theory become quite long (and is already showing signs of that at this early stage), it will become increasingly tedious to scroll down to the Survey section. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial and makes sense, Done. If anyone objects feel free to revert and discuss per WP:BRD. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• I think a large part of the problem with this article is the #Proposed theories section. As written that is a jumble of terms which, I suspect to many people, all appear to be different. That gives the impression that there are 2**N models and nobody knows (anything?). In reality this is not the case, and some careful rewriting will, I think, make the article much better. Almost everything in that section is really the creation of charge/polarisation which then gets translated into light. For instance piezoelectricity is an established mechanism for triboelectricity in non-centro symmetric materials as is (now) flexoelectricity; all of these connect to stresses. All the electrokinetic terms are liquid analogues of the above terms. In fact almost everything in that first paragraph is different ways of combining mechanical deformation and polarization, excepting Exoelectron emission (which I wonder about on a science basis). Some clarification and better writing with sources which show the connections of the basic physics (they exist) would help. It can still be stated that there is, as yet, no full concensus but in a more positive way.Ldm1954 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that you are right. Alas, this opens up a huge problem for the proponents of the overall theory that earthquakes creating lights in the sky is real. Let's assume for a moment that something about the earth moving or about rock being squeezed causes the lights. Can it cause the lights a week before or a week after the movement/squeezing? Or 500 miles away? We aren't talking about foreshocks or aftershocks. That's just more moving/squeezing. Many of the reports have zero evidence of anything happening in the ground at the time and place where the lights are observed. And some of the more recent ones happened above ground that is heavily instrumented and would catch any earth movement or squeezing. That's why I originally expressed a concern about the removal of WP:PARITY skeptical sources. it promotes a pro-fringe POV. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Actually a see no inconsistency. You are referring to plastic deformation, when there are movements from microns to meters; the terms I referred to and (I think) are in the article are more at the nanoscale and mainly elastic deformation. There is no physical inconsistency between high strain at one place but failure somewhere else. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't solve the problem. Both plastic deformation and elastic deformation can be measured. There exists no reliable source that establishes that any sort of deformation was measured at the time and place where many of the sightings occurred. Nor has it been established that deformation causes lights in the sky, although there are theories. For historic sightings we have to rely on people feeling the ground move, and again there exists no reliable source that establishes that anyone felt the ground moving at the time and place where many of the sightings occurred. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  All I said before and now is that the #Proposed theories section is poorly written. It does not make it clear that the same physics that creates lightning has been suggested to explain earthquake light. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: which sources are you referring to in your C !vote? Thanks! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I am on travel, so can only give a couple of recent, meaty reviews related to triboelectricity, DOI:10.1088/1361-6633/ae08cb and DOI:10.1002/smtd.202501782. You can probably pull some sources from Triboelectric effect. Note, all of these are on the underlying science and do not specifically discuss earthquake lights. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Would this edit cover some of your concerns? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1360644205&oldid=1360110721 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am busy working restructuring results for a conference from Sunday. It is on my "to do" list to rewrite that section. While I know the physics, I have to look at the relevant sources here first so it wont happen that quickly. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Excessively long 'notes' in lede

The lede has two very lengthy 'notes' embedded in it, each note heavily cited. I see no point to this. The lede is a summary of the body of the article. There's no value added to the article by embedding excessively long explications in lede - whether overtly or in notes. What is in the lede is to be covered in the body. A superficial scan suggests that all the information in those notes is detailed in the body. The notes seriously degrade the readability of the lede.

Is there any strong reason against simply removing those notes (assuming the cites in them are found in the body)? I see there's some discussion above, but it doesn't seem to explicitly discuss the appropriateness of larding the lede with already cited info. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I am more than happy to break all that back out to the body: putting them into the efn's was an attempt to make them tidier, and like you I actually prefer a plain-written article. It would take me not long at all to integrate it all conservatively.

They were created to make sure all claims were airtight and beyond so in sourcing given the sheer velocity of complaints I was receiving.

The only reason they are "housed" as text up top is because I couldn't seem to figure out a way to "house" them in terms of technical wikimedia mechanics down around the Notes section prior without creating an extra +1 ghost citation (seemed to be a wikimedia actual code issue). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ALWAYSCITELEAD is one reason to retain citations in the lead. When material has been contested by another editor, especially in a more contentious topic area, it can be good practice to include citations to prevent repetitive arguments over the content in question. Katzrockso (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fine; the problem is pure readability at this point. If you are reading the lede for the first time, and your mouse either intentionally or unintentionally hovers over the notes, a huge block of text - large than the lede itself - obscures most of the lead. Citing the lede - all good. Lengthy detailed narratives attached to each cite in a note - adds a lot of 'friction' to merely reading the ostensible 'summary' of the article. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:07, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

How does the first pass look? The lede will also obviously be much longer, it's lagging hard behind the article currently. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I cut back more again - better? Figure in a bit the lede will probably be about double the size too. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for that. A significant improvement. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T22707

Very Polite Person, the probable reason you couldn't figure out how to do that is because of a bug in handling references nested within an efn explanatory note positioned as a list-defined reference. There is some explanation of a similar case at {{sfn#Sfn embedded in list-defined ref does not work}}; the workaround listed there regarding the use of {{sfnlink}} may allow you to resolve the problem you were having. Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

EQLs and the 1904–1905 Welsh revival

Some new content was added on EQLs and the Welsh Religious Revival.

A reported sighting in Wales was connected by witnesses to Capel Egryn near Tal-y-bont as a 1904-1905 religious revival was taking place, influencing the events afterward.

And this image caption:

Capel Egryn in Wales was connected to earthquake lights and influenced an early 20th century religious revival.

References

The Times source looks like a brief essay by Times meteorologist Paul Simon, and the claim that these were EQLs seems to be his own. Does he have the expertise to be RS for this? Don't religious revivals typically involve a lot of visions, etc, anyway? This source on that revival says that a revivalist named Evan Roberts, "the chief instigator of this tumult" (quote from the Lancet, 26 November 1904) was having visions of Jesus and the Devil on a regular basis, was that also related to seismic phenomena?

There's a source in Welsh, but it doesn't seem to even mention EQLs. Geogene (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Welsh source is impact of witnesses and cultural context. I see no issues with the content.

Does he have the expertise to be RS for this?

Are you now expanding requirements to something like everyone here as a source must be an academic? No such rule exists on this site. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

So why was Skeptoid podcaster Brian Dunning removed, then? Geogene (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Because he was historically poor source? Your issue is not with me, I didn't remove him. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:10, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Robert Sheaffer too? A whole Criticism section got taken out. . And that's fine, if it represents consensus. But I think that many of your sources are bad. Geogene (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the "skeptic" section was bad and others, not me, removed it. Consensus on WP:FTN was that Sheaffer cannot be a source on this article as he is a climate change denier. Not my call. I support it. Those folk shouldn't be platformed anywhere here for any purpose on Wikipedia.

You can think my sources are bad, but your unique extra-stringent standards is not compatible with past, current or likely to ever exist Wikipedia norms. Others have tried to patiently explain this to you, and I decline to be the next person you may not listen to. Cultural topics are 100% fine to be included here. There is no such thing as a "pure" article that is only written on a pure science axis. That is not what Wikipedia is or will ever be. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:17, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Geogene I removed the Dunning source because as well as not being particularly good, it didn't add anything to the article (even of a sceptical nature) not being said by much stronger sources. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your removal of this content with this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&curid=5618154&diff=1355144292&oldid=1355141915

Your stated edit summary has zero policy support: Source for the claim was a meteorologist at the Times, not a historian, nor an EQL expert.

Multiple editors have cautioned you to not enforce your own unilateral sourcing standards that exceed site normative standards. You have no special authority. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 04:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this removal is probably fine. It's a passing mention of one theory for the reported observation of these lights 120 years ago, and has only received mention in two news sources. That seems like something that's not due for inclusion per WP:BALASP; For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. We should probably focus on events people have connected with earthquake lights in multiple publications over a longer period of time and those that have received detailed case reports (e.g. I saw some case reports of EQLs in Chile, Italy, etc - a full length article on the phenomenon certainly means it is WP:DUE for inclusion). Katzrockso (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there any objection to further cultural/religious content? I'm reasonably sure a solid paragraph can be made. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:00, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Best Sources

Tertiary Sources

• 313 citations 2026-05-20 - Derr, J.S.; St-Laurent, F.; Freund, F.T.; Thériault, R. (2021). "Earthquake Lights". In Gupta, H.K. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Solid Earth Geophysics. Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series. Springer Nature. At present there is no consensus among seismologists on the phenomenology and physical mechanism of EQL and associated EM phenomena. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.

Secondary Sources

Reviews

• 98 citations 2026-05-20 - Freund, Friedemann; Ouillon, Guy; Scoville, John; Sornette, Didier (2021). "Earthquake precursors in the light of peroxy defects theory: Critical review of systematic observations". The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 230: 7–46. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2020-000243-x. numerous credible reports of luminous phenomena associated with earthquakes dating back for centuries, and high-quality images and video are now available due to the proliferation of digital imaging Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
  • this is a "critical review" with Freund as lead author in light of his own theory. need to keep in mind if using for content
• 89 citations 2026-05-20 - Conti, Livio; Picozza, Piergiorgio; Sotgiu, Alessandro (July 6, 2021). "A Critical Review of Ground Based Observations of Earthquake Precursors". frontiers in Earth Science. 9. One of the most controversial debates about earthquake precursors is the presumed correlation between the occurrence of seismic events and: 1) observations of earthquake lights;
  • critical of eyewitness and even photographic evidence
  • negative feedback from editors due to Frontiers Media publication

Journal Articles

• 66 citations 2026-05-20 - Thériault, Robert; St-Laurent, France; Freund, Friedemann T.; Derr, John S. (2014). "Prevalence of Earthquake Lights Associated with Rift Environments" (PDF). Seismological Research Letters. 85 (1): 159–178. doi:10.1785/0220130059.
  • link includes supplement: "complete description of 60 of the 65 earthquakes associated with luminosities"
  • possibly a critical paper but only 66 scholar cites

Texts

• 211 citations 2026-05-20 - Hough, Susan Elizabeth (2010). Predicting the Unpredictable: The Tumultuous Science of Earthquake Prediction. Princeton University Press.
  • limited (2 pages) concerning EQL themselves
  • Freund's theory, Seismic Electromagnetic Signals (SEMS) as precursors/co-sesmic applicability for prediction/early warning, general discussion of prediction science
  • discusses some fringe concerns
  • possible WP:AGEMATTERS concerns
  • the author might have a less sceptical outlook as to EQL in other publications than presented here

History

• 16 citations 2026-05-20 - Stothers, R.B. (2004). "Ancient and Modern Earthquake Lights in Northwestern Turkey". Seismological Research Letters. 75 (2): 199–204. doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.2.199.

• 8 citations 2026-05-20 - Florinsky, I.V. (2016). "Earthquake lights in Legends of the Greek Orthodoxy". Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry. 16 (1): 159–168. doi:10.5281/zenodo.35529.

Primary Sources

Reports of Observations

• 57 citations 2026-05-20 - Galli, I. (1910). "Raccolta e classificazione di fenomeni luminosi osservati nei terremoti". Boll. Soc. Sismol. Ital. XIV: 221–448.
• 104 citations 2026-05-20 - Terada, T. (1930). "On Luminous Phenomena Accompanying Earthquakes". Proc. Imperial Acad. 6 (10): 401–404. doi:10.2183/pjab1912.6.401.
• 1 citations 2026-05-20 - Richter, C. F. (1958). Elementary Seismology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
• 39 citations 2026-05-20 - Yasui, Y. (1968). "A Study on the Luminous Phenomena Accompanied with Earthquake (Part I)". Mem. Kakioka Magnet. Observ. 13: 25–61.
  • published the first photograph of EQL
• 225 citations 2026-05-20 - Derr, J. S. (1973). "Earthquake Lights: a Review of Observations and Present Theories". Bull. Seismological Soc. America. 63 (6–1): 2177–2187.
• 48 citations 2026-05-20 - Derr, J. S. (1986). "Rock Mechanics: Luminous Phenomena and Their Relationship to Rock Fracture". Nature. 321 (6069): 470–471. doi:10.1038/321470a0.
• 58 citations 2026-05-20 - Tsukuda, T. (1997). "Sizes and Some Features of Luminous Sources Associated with the 1995 Hyogo-Ken Nanbu Earthquake". J. Phy. Earth. 45 (2): 73–82. doi:10.4294/jpe1952.45.73.
  • 1995 Hanshin earthquake
• 25 citations 2026-05-20 - Papadopoulos, G. A. (1999). "Luminous and Fiery Phenomena Associated with Earthquakes in the East Mediterranean". In Hayakawa, M. (ed.). Atmospheric and Ionospheric Electromagnetic Phenomena Associated with Earthquakes. Tokyo: Terra Scientific Pub. Comp. pp. 559–575.
• 16 citations 2026-05-20 - Stothers, R. B. (2004). "Ancient and Modern Earthquake Lights in Northwestern Turkey". Seismological Res. Lett. 75 (2): 199–204. doi:10.1785/gssrl.75.2.199.
• 108 citations 2026-05-20 - St-Laurent, F.; Derr, J. S.; Freund, F. T. (2006). "Earthquake Lights and the Stress-Activation of Positive Hole Charge Carriers in Rocks". Phys. Chem. Earth. 31 (4–9): 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2006.02.003.
• 121 citations 2026-05-20 - Omori, Y; Yasuoka, Y.; Nagahama, H.; Kawada, Y.; Ishikawa, T.; Tokonami, S.; et al. (2007). "Anomalous Radon Emanation Linked to Preseismic Electromagnetic Phenomena". Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 7 (5): 629–635. doi:10.5194/nhess-7-629-2007.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• 91 citations 2026-05-20 - Fidani, C. (2010). "The Earthquake Lights (EQL) of the 6 April 2009 Aquila Earthquake, in Central Italy". Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 10 (5): 967–978. doi:10.5194/nhess-10-967-2010.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
• 37 citations 2026-05-20 - Heraud, J. A.; Lira, J. A. (2011). "Co-seismic Luminescence in Lima, 150 Km from the Epicenter of the Pisco, Peru Earthquake of 15 August 2007". Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 11 (4): 1025–1036. doi:10.5194/nhess-11-1025-2011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Other options to review

Prior further reading list

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&oldid=1355139569#Further_reading For more options to consider - I'd pulled it out last night from the live article. A few more options if one wants to consider rescue to the above section. cc User:Fiveby — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

More options from collected notes

<ref name="Enomoto Japan EQL 2024">{{cite journal |last=Enomoto |first=Yuji |date=2024 |title=Earthquake Lights Observed in Japan: Possible Underlying Mechanisms |journal=Atmosphere |volume=15 |issue=8 |page=916 |doi=10.3390/atmos15080916 |url=https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/15/8/916 |quote=In Japan, a country prone to earthquakes, numerous damaging earthquakes have been recorded throughout history, often accompanied by descriptions of mysterious earthquake lights.}}</ref>

<ref name="Kato fault luminescence 2010">{{cite journal |last1=Kato |first1=Mitsuharu |last2=Mitsui |first2=Yuta |last3=Yanagidani |first3=Tetsuro |date=2010 |title=Photographic evidence of luminescence during faulting in granite |journal=Earth, Planets and Space |volume=62 |issue=5 |pages=489-493 |doi=10.5047/eps.2010.02.004 |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.5047/eps.2010.02.004 |quote=Anecdotes of such luminous phenomenon are reported in ancient Egyptian, Chinese, and Japanese documents. |archive-url= |archive-date=}}</ref>

+2 here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments

This is an attempt at a WP:BESTSOURCES and top-down approach for the article. I've organized along the lines of primary/secondary/tertiary though i think that distinction is blurred within the sciences. I should probably read WP:SCIRS but here is my thinking:

• tertiary: for possible citation but really useful as a model for the article content, assurance that that article is presenting things the right way, and for finding other sources. What i'd really like to locate here is a current university textbook or two
• secondary: for building article content
• primary: really like citations to primary sources as a service to the reader, but some possible mention in text. These i've added because they have been mentioned in a secondary source

Anyway everyone feel free to add/remove/edit, comment beneath each source, or reorganize the whole list if you've a better idea. Just normal editing. And it's of course a work in progress.

Workshop question

@Fiveby: or others: serious question: why don't any Article pages have communal option workshop type subpages like Talk:Earthquake_light/workshop or subpages under such? Set to non-search engine index, but linked off the talk pages. Not perhaps in the same way that a user draft space can be used like User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion, or maybe not quite like what I did with Christopher Mellon previously as seen here now on Talk:Christopher Mellon/Archive 1 - Notability and References analysis. An always accessible space to put community curated stable data like this as an article local reference without worrying about general Talk page instability. That way each article can have a stable local reference index like this. The long term benefits would be monumental, as people could find useful things from adjacent articles then far more readily, and launch tools at those pages to find connections.

This would be a textbook example of the sort of thing to put there surely? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:52, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's done every once in awhile and can find some more examples. In my experience it is low-visibility on a subpage and ignored, or scrolls of into the archives from the talk page and eventually ignored. Think there needs to be some kind of agreement amongst editors to use best sources and avoid backwards editing for it to be useful. We're kind of all over the place on sourcing for the article, BC i think wants to cut and merge or Afd, GM might be wanting more skeptical sources and looking to WP:PARITY, and you seem to be throwing everything you can into the content. Anyway see how useful it is and see if the listing convinces anyone. fiveby(zero) 15:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I have done this a couple of times. One time it was very productive; the other was somewhat productive. I think it only really makes sense when all three of these apply to the article:

1. The live article is already in presentable shape,
2. But it needs major changes or updates,
3. And multiple editors are hashing out those changes at the same time.

If the live article is rough, the changes aren't major, or one editor is doing most of the changes, I don't think it makes sense because there are several technical limitations. The big one (as @Fiveby notes) is visibility. Editors who have the article on their watchlist will see updates here, but most are not likely to watchlist subpages.

Another technical limitation is that the talk page banner templates automatically detect "/Archive X" but not something like "/workshop". If you were to do that source analysis directly on this talk page, it would be easier for future editors to find it.

From personal experience, when merging archived subpage banner templates into {{archive}} with several other editors, we had to clean up many archived subpages and they were pretty much all talk page archives. All that said, @Very Polite Person: nothing prevents you from making that subpage. If you do, you can add {{Workpage}} at the top so that editors, and even casual readers, who stumbled onto it will better understand what they are looking at. A side benefit of that template is that it allows you to search what other have done though only 130 are in the "Talk" namespace. Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I have done this as well: see for example, Talk:The Buddha/Tertiary sources. In my opinion, it was a key factor in an Rfc determining the current title of the article The Buddha. A unique subpage is a better location for it imho than an anonymous, numbered archive page. Another way to do it is in project space as a sort of referential essay. Here's one of that type, entitled Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes. Mathglot (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Frontiers Media and WP:MDPI

Thoughts or some kind of consensus on the open access mega-publishers for this article? Consider them or don't bother? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Here for the curious, we have one here with 89 citations to it: Talk:Earthquake light#Reviews

Wouldn't it be down to how the researchers citing the paper receive it in aggregate and overall, superseding our viewpoint? What do those citations say? Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=10748082285248016420&as_sdt=5,48&sciodt=0,48&hl=en — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:58, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't help in this case that the top citations for this source are all MDPI and Frontiers journals too. Katzrockso (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Consider them more like EXPERTSPS imo, since the review process that grants academic work reliability is more suspect for these journals. Katzrockso (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What's actually the issue with these Frontiers ones? I've heard that before, but is that actually a publisher thing, or just certain journals? Is it a past or present confirmed issue? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:22, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of RS/N discussions about that one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I will say I have some friends in the sciences who have published in Frontiers journals (particularly Frontiers in plant science and Frontiers in genetics). Katzrockso (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, sure it looks like 48% of cites are from MDPI and Frontiers but the other 52% are not.

• Wiley - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL101298
• Cited by 37 - https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=11683918496071795082&as_sdt=5,48&sciodt=0,48&hl=en
• Cites the Conti et al paper we're discussing
• Literally the first citation is to this paper? The research toward understanding large earthquakes' generation and precursor phases is still in process (Conti et al., 2021; Ellsworth & Beroza, 1995).

Doesn't it matter how the resource we want to use is seen by actual scientific peers, versus the place that published it? If Einstein 2.0 suddenly dropped in a goofy paper because the person didn't know better, the work is still sound if it's sound and seen as such? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Both are important. The place of publication helps us evaluate the reliability, since different journals have different peer review quality. But the number of citations let us evaluate its prominence within the scientific literature (goes a bit more to establishing weight) Katzrockso (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Well wait. Reliability has to be weighed also, certainly, vs who cites to it, and in turn the downstream. Science is based on reproduction and yes, trust. I could solve fusion energy and it doesn't matter if it's in the Weekly World News, if the outcome/data is true. That's determined by test/repro and reaction from the rest of the non-wikipedia community, not the original publishing venue. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Reported Details

@Rjjiii: I dig this a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1355484689&oldid=1355482789

It's a strong parallel to the millennia of witness evidence that the history section is all about in the open until the 1960s photos. I know the Source-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named had the most diverse set of historical arcana (especially in Japan) about this, but I think it had if not directly usable but possibly things that can maybe lead to older scientific reporting on it? Could be a good contrast to mirror the pre/post 1960s split in history there. It feels sort of on the nose obvious, since the volume of papers/coverage goes up after? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea is solid but have struggled to find the sources I would want to cite for something like this. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there really was a pre/post 1960 split?

Though early photographs of earthquake lights as described in [(Derr 1973)] were met with skepticism, digital photography has now documented many instances. Precise timing of seismic waves and photography of earthquake lights in Peru has established that light emission is correlated with the arrival of seismic waves [(Lira 2008)].

— Freund 2021

Was thinking Thériault 2014 may have been a point where views of EQL may have changed, but can't confirm that. fiveby(zero) 13:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I was probably overthinking it when I started to redo it.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1355555877&oldid=1355552313
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light#History

How about this? Just keep it basic and boring. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:19, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Earthquake light/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 06:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed