Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 29, 2024, 12:54:13 AM

Quote from: Weaver on May 28, 2024, 04:33:09 PMDoes it have an ISBN number to quote back at them? If so, game over in your favour.

Of course it does, but they only made one print run of it, and that was in the 80s. Before 'they' were born I expect................

As far as I know, that shouldn't matter by Wikipedia's rules. Published is published. What's the book title and author?

Quote from: Weaver on May 29, 2024, 03:23:32 AMAs far as I know, that shouldn't matter by Wikipedia's rules. Published is published. What's the book title and author?

'APT, a promise unfulfilled' by Hugh Williams, published by Ian Allan.

If I'm not too mistaken, there's an old saying that kinda goes: "Information is power. And those who control information have all the power."

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 29, 2024, 05:23:18 AM

Quote from: Weaver on May 29, 2024, 03:23:32 AMAs far as I know, that shouldn't matter by Wikipedia's rules. Published is published. What's the book title and author?

'APT, a promise unfulfilled' by Hugh Williams, published by Ian Allan.

ISBN: 0711014744.

Because those in power (and thoise who serve them) literally write "their" history. Objective (and even correct!) information is hard to find.

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 29, 2024, 05:23:18 AM

Quote from: Weaver on May 29, 2024, 03:23:32 AMAs far as I know, that shouldn't matter by Wikipedia's rules. Published is published. What's the book title and author?

'APT, a promise unfulfilled' by Hugh Williams, published by Ian Allan.

Okay, good. That book is already cited in the bibliography of the following Wikipedia's articles, so there should be no problem with you citing it in any article on Wikipedia.

Advanced Passenger Train: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Passenger_Train
British Rail APT-E: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_APT-E
British Rail Class 370: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_370 (not cited but listed under "further reading")

Looks like the 'editor' in the various other tilting trains pages doesn't read the stuff allied to the earlier trains then.

[Later] Actually if you look in the 'Talk' section of the page on the APT-E the major input there is written by some guy called Spackman.   

I did that AGES ago though.

Wikipedia?  An interesting source, generally correct and my preferred quick go-to source on most topics but one I use with provisios.  The section on Australia and the Vietnam war is basically correct but not on the Army's operations in South Vietnam.  I once edited it and employed a recently published book but made up a reference to it and added it to their entry to see if it would get passed by their moderators.   Guess what happened?  It got passed.  Why?  Because it supposedly came from a fairly obscure publication from the Army History Unit.  No one bothered to check it.   

Quote from: rickshaw on June 01, 2024, 03:39:32 AMWikipedia?  An interesting source, generally correct and my preferred quick go-to source on most topics but one I use with provisios. 

My view as well

Quote from: PR19_Kit on May 29, 2024, 03:07:15 PMLooks like the 'editor' in the various other tilting trains pages doesn't read the stuff allied to the earlier trains then.

[Later] Actually if you look in the 'Talk' section of the page on the APT-E the major input there is written by some guy called Spackman.   

I did that AGES ago though.

Well if you want that info corrected/added in the actual artical, and it's in the books, then edit it in and cite the page in the book using the same format as the rest of the article. If they've accepted the book as a source, and you reflect what it says accurately, I don't see how anybody could object.

To return to the original question, my answer would be  "Probably not trustworthy"  BUT    it will give you a number of lines of possible enquiry to follow up.