Talk:William Beauchamp Nevill

italics
The section Reviews italicises a lot, apparently according to the editor's opinion of what is most interesting. I shall romanise to the original unless I hear otherwise. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you misunderstood. The italics are the quoted journalists quoting Nevill's book. To clarify:
 * (1) Italics = quotes from Nevill's book.
 * (2) Normal font = quote from reviewer in newspaper or other source (who in turn is using italics to quote Nevill's book).
 * Square brackets enclose the WP editor's (my) paraphrase and/or clarification, which is necessary to shorten the quote as far as possible).
 * So please do not "romanise" the whole lot, or we shall end up with a lot of plagiarism and confusion. I shall add a note to that section to clarify things for other readers. Storye book (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Note to editors
Please do not edit the article to make it appear that Nevill did not commit a crime and/or did not deserve punishment. All contemporary authoritative sources make it clear that he did commit a financial crime and that the court's judgement was correct. He did deny fault for his crime in the first section of his book, but (although the rest of the book was admired) that denial was not taken seriously by his contemporary reviewers. Therefore we have no grounds to change the fact in the article.

It is true that if you read all of the sources carefully, you can read between the lines and see something else (not mentioned in the article) about him which - in my opinion - suggests that he may well deserve compassion for that element. However on WP we are not permitted to include interpretative material in the article. Even if we were permitted to interpret subtexts of sources and express compassion for Nevil in the article, the sources still make absolutely clear that he committed the crime of financial fraud and that the court judgement was appropriate for that. Storye book (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)