In San Francisco a man who attended Neville's meetings told him of a stranger met in a bar who, wounded in the Korean War and lying in a hospital in Japan, found himself in Europe dancing with a lady in hoop skirts, told the crowd he was an American soldier, and returned by assuming he was back on his hospital bed.
Date (happened)
c. 1950
stated · probable · preferred
Source
"years ago", told in Behold the Dreamer Cometh (nid 1439)
c. 1965
stated · possible
c. 1965
estimated · doubtful
Why
Ceiling correction analogous to npr:70003 on this same event, applied to the field_date row instead of the told row.
Reasoning
The existing field_date claim (delta 1, 'possible') reads 1965 off passage 543307's 'on the very last night ... just before I took the platform' by assuming the telling happened on the night of nid 1758's own delivery, using that lecture's old catalog date of 1965-02-23. That delivery claim is now only 'doubtful' -- the lecture's own internal references and its chrome byline favour 1969-09-19 (probable) instead. A claim derived from a lecture's delivery date cannot be more confident than that lecture's own strongest delivery claim; 'possible' sits above the 'doubtful' ceiling the 1965 reading actually rests on, so it is corrected down here. This does not establish 1969 as the happening-date either -- 'on the very last night' still describes when Neville was told the story face to face, not when the soldier's own experience occurred -- it only lowers confidence in the existing 1965 reading.
Told
14 April 1969
stated · doubtful
Source
Behold the Dreamer Cometh (nid 1439), telling 1439-4, told 1969-04-14
14 April 1969
stated · doubtful
Source
Behold the Dreamer Cometh (nid 1439), telling 1439-4, told 1969-04-14
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 1439 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1439 delivery claims: 1969-4-14 doubtful; 1969-9-19 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.
19 September 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 1758 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 1758 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1969-9-19 at `probable`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-23 refuted; 1969-9-19 probable (preferred). Superseded here: delta 1: 1965-02-23 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`) | delta 3: 1965-02-23 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.
23 February 1965
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1758, 1965-2-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-9-19. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
23 February 1965
stated · refuted
Why
Corrects the confidence of the told claim written by run `corpus v1 / phase3b` at delta 1 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 1758 and asserts `certain`, but the strongest claim that node carries is `probable`, so there is nothing for `certain` to inherit from. nid 1758 delivery claims: 1965-2-23 doubtful; 1969-9-19 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 1758, 1965-2-23) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1969-9-19. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The Dreamer ¶15 (In San Francisco on the very last night this chap told me a story just before I took the platform, and I asked him to tell it to those who were present.)