At the time of the calling he was separated from his wife, with his small son moving between them, and did not consider himself pure in heart or worthy to be called.
Date (happened)
1929
stated · probable · preferred
1929
stated
Reasoning
The passage directly states In 1929 I was called, and passage 532799 identifies the circumstances.
Told / reported
28 February 1969
estimated · probable
Why
Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
Reasoning
Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1196 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1196 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-2-28 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1965-3-5 refuted; 1969-2-28 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1965-03-05 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 1: 1965-03-05 at `probable` (run `v1.1/l4/ceiling/c2`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
28 February 1969
estimated · probable
Reasoning
The event is narrated in node 1196, whose authoritative adjudication fixes delivery at 1969-02-28 certain and rejects 1965-03-05. || v1.1 ceiling repair: asserted certain by run v1.1/l4/actor425/15500-15999-b1, lowered to probable — the delivery claim on node 1196 it derives from is no stronger than probable.
5 March 1965
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1196, 1965-3-5) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-2-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
5 March 1965
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 0 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only. Ceiling rule #2132.
Reasoning
Confidence only; the date is not re-adjudicated and is left exactly as written. This claim is derived from the delivery claims of node 1196 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1196 delivery claims: 1965-3-5 possible; 1969-2-28 probable. Walked back to `probable`, the ceiling. Whether the DATE is right is a separate question this row does not touch; if the evidence turns out to support more confidence, it will have to come from a source other than this node. || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1196, 1965-3-5) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-2-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- Believe in Him ¶23 (My wife and I were separated, and my little boy was moving back and forth between us. With the conflicts which go with all these silly little things, I would never have judged myself worthy of being pure in heart.)