Talk:Isis Unveiled

Reliable source
Regarding this removal of newspaper review quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isis_Unveiled&diff=prev&oldid=1143753758 The Blavatsky.net website is in general, of course, not a reliable source for this topic. But the newspapers quotes themselves are quite useful secondary sources for that section - and such reviews are very difficult to find 150 years after the fact. My question is if it is fully justified to remove them completely. They are merely 'quoted in' the linked to website. If today a publisher places the quotes of reviews on a book cover - is that really so problematic a source to copy? Do you need to have seen the newspaper/review itself? I understand it is better if they are corroborated using another source, but in the meantime my suggestion is to add them back, additionally listing the need for a (better) source for each quote. I tried to google a bit, but it is difficult to find these old newspapers - many were abolished long ago. I heard there is a 'collected writings' edition of all Blavatsky's work and that it is published by a different publisher. Part of the editorial process was that every reference in Blavatsky's writings was double checked. That may be a lead. 2001:1C02:280A:5600:CC51:39E5:A7F8:4268 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * None of it is reliable I am afraid. You need scholarly sources written by historians or academics published by recognized publishing companies, or from peer-reviewed academic papers. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)