Imagine Neville
Home / How we read, write and source

The project

How we read, write and source

Imagine Neville’s editorial approach: clear attribution, specific source notes, original examples and a distinction between belief and evidence.

Three kinds of statement

  1. The author’s claim. We identify the work and chapter when explaining Neville’s ideas.
  2. Our interpretation or adaptation. We label our examples and exercises rather than putting them in his voice.
  3. A claim about evidence. We identify what a study or record supports and what it does not.

Sources and editions

We consult the referenced pages and passages. Book transcriptions on third-party archives help locate chapters but may contain errors. We identify them as transcriptions and do not assume their rights statements apply globally. We link to works rather than reproducing complete books.

Biographical claims require appropriate sources. The current death page states the lifespan supported by publisher biographies and explicitly leaves cause unverified. We do not manufacture archival records or turn an unsourced story into a fact.

Original work and AI assistance

AI assists drafting, coding and organization. Examples are illustrative and do not represent a reader’s reported outcome. The monogram and conceptual diagrams are original SVG assets created for this site. The gouache artwork on the home and reading-guide pages is an AI-generated illustration of an imagined reading room, not a historical location or a documentary image. We do not reuse historical photos, imported artwork or old testimonials without a verified basis.

Critical standards

Personal meaning is different from causal proof. We do not promise money, cures, a particular relationship or results within a deadline. We do not attribute trauma, abuse or illness to a person’s inadequate belief. Other people’s consent and autonomy remain part of every practical example.

Updates and corrections

Guides show an actual preparation or update date. Changed claims should be checked against their sources before publication. Material corrections should identify the changed claim in the maintained project record. The project does not currently offer a public submission form or monitored inbox; it does not imply a functioning feedback channel.

Research notes, source records and release checks are maintained with the project. A page passing technical checks is not described as independent expert approval.