Talk:Woodside Store

Using supportparks.org as a source
Joojay had problems with the use of this page on supportparks.org as a source, because it's supposedly a primary source. It sounds like in this case, it's less the being primary vs secondary that's at issue (I believe it's a secondary source for this particular information - it's not a direct account from someone who was at the opening etc) but rather the independence of the source (the copyright to the page is held by the county, that also owns the property). Given the information it's supporting (the entry into the California Register for historic landmarks and the year that the store opened as a museum, I didn't imagine this would be so controversial. This would probably be different when I'd use it to support claims about its national importance etc. For now, I undid the revert, assuming there is some misunderstanding, that we can resolve here on the talk page. effeietsanders 16:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * the issue is that this is common information that can be found in second RS sources, unsure why you would prefer using a primary source? Joojay (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The thing is, for these facts this is not a primary source. The primary source here would be a statement by the civil servant that made the registry, or the registry itself. This page describes the fact that it is registered, and provides an expert interpretation of it. There are several primary sources in the article though, and that is fine depending on the facts that they are used for (Policy: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge). Most of the information in the article is of this straightforward descriptive nature to begin with. Hopefully you can take some time to closely review this again, and let me know if you arrive at the same conclusion. If there are specific concerns you have with this source in combination with the facts it supports, I'm all ears. effeietsanders 18:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is published by the owners of the property and museum, which is the County of San Mateo (just as you stated before). The argument is dragging on here to justify using it for one fact about when the County of San Mateo opened the museum. The San Mateo County Parks Foundation is the same county offices as the San Mateo County Parks Department. I don't think this is "controversial", but rather bad editing practice since other sources do exist. Joojay (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, so it's not really the primary/secondary nature, but rather the independence of the source that bothers you. I can appreciate that. Feel free to add a different source for that section, of course. I just didn't understand why you reverted the entire edit. effeietsanders 19:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)