Talk:Computer case screws

References using "Dan's Data". I'm not sure that this website could be considered, in Wikipedia terms, to be a reliable source. It just appears to be a questions and answers page and not much more than a blog of sorts. Googleing Daniel Rutter just says he is a journalist, it doesn't demonstrate that he or his site is a reliable source. There is nothing I can find on his website that attests to his technical qualifications or anything that demonstrates the site's validity under WP:RS. ---- WebHamster 11:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That guy also happens to have a blog - the reference is not to the blog. Incidentally, when the claim is merely what gauge of screw is holding your computer together, the bar isn't quite as high as you make it out to be. The guy holds himself to be an "independent reviewer of PC hardware and gadgets" and given the circumstances, that's plenty. Reswobslc 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I said itnot much more than a blog, I didn't say it was the blog on the website. And just because you think it's a reliable source doesn't mean that it meets WP:RS, he just states his opinions they aren't backed up by anything, it's certainly not peer reviewed. In the circumstances when it's borderline it's customary to supply secondary sources. As regards its importance vis-s-vis "just a screw". Statements of fact such as you've made require citations. You've impressed on me enough times how important they are, it's not one rule for me and one rule for you. ---- WebHamster 19:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a rule about making statements about living people that's much stricter, that's what WP:BLP is about. When an article speaks to no more than monkeying a PC case together, then even a trained monkey nearly suffices as a reliable source for an otherwise non-controversial easily independently verified fact. This is just common sense, not favoritism. When I write about living people the burden is just as high (see my past edits to Dell Schanze for example). Reswobslc 02:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree that BLP sources should be more rigid, but that doesn't detract from the fact that WP:RS still applies to any claims in any article. I'm suggesting that good ol' Dan does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, regardless of the fact that it's just a screw. If I was sticking to the letter of the law I would have deleted it, I didn't. The citation tagging was valid as is my concern over the reliability of the source. For example Dan makes no reference to the country he is referring to, neither do you. How do you or he know what is standard in other countries? There is a world beyond the US and you (and he) don't seem to be addressing that. At the very least I would suggest a better/reliable source but if one can't be found then a secondary source should also be used. Failing that I'd suggest leaving the citation tags in place until someone else can come up with a reliable source. Alternatively you can reword it appropriately. Your choice. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)