Talk:Flash Boys

Sourcing issues

A removed source, Harvard Political Review is a student-run newspaper. Articles can be submitted by *all* undergraduate students, whether through voluntary participation in the editorial staff (usually a huge and loose group) or via sending in an op-ed by email. In this case, HPR's website indicates the article was written by a sophomore student who has fewer than 10 articles on record. By default, these newspapers are not meant as actual journalistic publications.

There is a related issue; because this is a non-fictional book on a rather technical practice, academic reviews from scholars in relevant disciplines should be incorporated if not strictly preferred. As of now, there is only one source from economics/finance, a handbook article. This is clearly relevant, but it's also inaccessible, as handbook chapters are often not included in university digital library subscriptions. There is one source from a political scientist from the "qualitative" side of the field. I haven't read the book, but there is nothing in the article that indicates to me that the political scientist's background is relevant. Tanguay's background is in French and politics; his career and publications have been limited to Canada-related political topics; and as one might have guessed, his area of focus is Quebecois politics with a focus on Quebecois nationalism. An academic's opinion is usually better than none, but this is a barely passable source for a book on HFT in Wall Street that briefly detours into special-interest politics. Because I've found better academic sources below, I've removed this source.

There's also a London Review of Books (LRB) review. I had initially thought this was a notable source by inferring from the name of the publication, but after looking through, it looks like there should be concerns as well. This is actually a literary criticism journal that's near bankruptcy. The reviewer writes fiction. I've removed this source tentatively as well, though I'm open to discussing it.

(The other existing sources were: an Institutional Investor quote, a prominent blog review, a Financial Post review. I think these are fine.)

Added sources:

In the case of a bestselling book like Flash Boys, there intuitively *should* be a decent amount of academic and non-academic sources out there. I had only spent an hour looking, but I've found and added:

- Slate magazine has a [thorough book review http://www.slate.com/authors.felix_salmon.html] from Felix Salmon, their financial columnist at the time. He has also been interviewed by the NPR on the same subject. I've cited this several times and added a few quotes; it's carefully written, comprehensive, and I subjectively think it's the best review I've found so far.

- New York times [review https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/books/flash-boys-by-michael-lewis-a-tale-of-high-speed-trading.html]

- [a blog review](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/04/book-review-flash-boys.html) by Noah Smith in 2004, who was an assistant professor of finance, and is now writing for Bloomberg. I have some qualms about Noah's reliability on my own, so I have added this as a secondary reference to some statements without citing it. However, do note that Noah Smith is quite a frequent source on Wikipedia articles, despite the shoddy look of that blog.

- a Forbes article on the SEC ruling, replacing the existing dead link.

- a Guardian article on both the book and the SEC case

- a The Economist article, also cited a study and another review

There's also a negative review by R. Christopher Whalen, which is noteworthy, because Whalen is a high profile media commentator that has several published works on the same topic that share a similar stance. This is noteworthy, but unfortunately he seems to have only published the review on Amazon and Zero Hedge so far, so I decided not to go with it.

73.61.12.201 (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)