Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Archive 54

No doubt asked a million times, but ...
... is there a list somewhere of sources that have had a consensus declaring them to be not reliable, i.e. that fail to be an RS, e.g. the latest being The Daily Mail? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In the domain of video games, yes, at WP:VG/S (and I believe DrChrissy asked the same in the RFC, to whom I replied then). I don't think I've seen another similar list for any other domains, though I suppose the "most cited" lists that we have here and there are sort of de facto whitelists (rather than also being grey- or blacklists). --Izno (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * One may start compiling one, starting with Daily Mail and expanding by vetting one by one the items from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Zimdars' fake news list (which looks like is about to be moved to Zimdars' fake news list). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Rfc
As a heads-up, there is a discussion centering around whether or not attributed opinions need coverage by secondary sources in order to use said opinion in articles. This discussion would greatly benefit from input from editors that understand WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, as well as basic Wikipedia sourcing policies. Thanks. That man from Nantucket (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst I can not contribute on that page, it is normally the case that opinions of people knowledgeable in a field are generally usable when attributed and cited as opinion.   We do not, then, require that we find a secondary source which cites the primary source of the opinion as opinion in order to note the opinion.  For example, Ernest Hemingway is generally notable as a primary source when mentioning his opinions about other authors.   The concept for using secondary sources is specifically applicable to statements of fact, lest Wikipedia editors do "original research" into such facts. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)