How to tell a reliable source from a non-reliable one?

by Algebrace

For academic journals and articles i would rank it as reliable, however it gets murky when coming across books on the bookshelf.

Is a book like "Dying to Win" by Robert A. Pape a reliable source or is it not?

Is the "Fruits of War" by Michael White a reliable source or is it just making a big deal out of coincidence?

It has me confused and i have no idea what i should be referencing my comments to questions on this sub-reddit.

TheRealBobHall

See what other people say. That's the beauty of peer-reviewed journals (use them! EBSCO, JSTOR...), they are critiqued by other professionals. So when researching a book to use, see what other historians say about it, and how it was critically acclaimed. I'd suggest just Googling whatever book is in question and see what other normal people and historians say about it. In regards to "Dying to Win" without really looking in to it, I peeked at its wikipedia page and found some critiques of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism#Critiques

Also, see what sources the author used. Where do they get their information? Do they merely speculate, or did they get their info from a credible source?

Also, for researching, I personally use J-STOR and Google Scholar. I personally find them to be reliable, helpful, and most of all, full of sources.