This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Hi 72.79.189.121. I know you mean well with your changes to the article, but I should explain why I've reverted them. The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that the article's title should appear in bold letters in the first line of the lede. The title comes from the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) , which refers to the site as "Heisey House" rather than "Heisey Museum". I realize that the museum is in the house, but the protocol is to use the official NRHP name. The dates and other data I've used are all supported by the NRHP document I've cited and linked to. By Wikipedia standards, it's a reliable source (explained at WP:RS) whereas dot-coms such as the museum web site are generally not considered reliable. Personal knowledge of facts can't be added to articles because personal knowledge can't be verified by reference to reliable sources. In fact, one of Wikipedia's primary directives is to avoid original research. Please see WP:OR and WP:V for details. So, I'm not reverting your changes because I disagree with you or that I think that what you're saying is untrue; I'm reverting them because whatever claims we make have to be supported by reliable published sources. I appreciate your interest in improving the encyclopedia, and I'd be happy to discuss this further if you like. Finetooth (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It's not the first time we've been victimized by sloppy research from the staff in the seventies; you'd be amazed at how many times I've caught them in errors. If that's what the National Register says, I understand your reasoning. For the record, the CCHS website contains information that was acquired from county deeds and other records, which I have on file in the museum. If you ever come in for a tour, feel free to ask---I'll be glad to show you!72.79.190.232 (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind offer. I'm unable to visit Lock Haven often, but it's likely that I will visit again some day, and I'll make a point of going to the museum. I've seen the building from the outside, but I've never ventured inside. Finetooth (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
