Autobiographical memory recalled by Neville in his lectures. Year derived: age 5 + birth 1905 = 1910. Told 1 time (1967). Judged his own (not a retold third-party story) by the whose_age adjudication.
Date (happened)
c. 1910
stated · probable · preferred
c. 1910
stated · possible
Source
age 5 + birth 1905 = 1910 (1 statement, told 1967)
before 19 February 1911
bound · probable
Reasoning
At no more than five, the recollection precedes his sixth birthday, 1911-02-19. The age yields an upper bound, not an exact year.
Told / reported
31 March 1967
estimated · doubtful
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 1270 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 1270 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1967-3-31 at `doubtful`. All claims on the node: 1958-3-31 refuted; 1967-3-31 doubtful; 1967-3-31 certain (preferred); 1969-9-16 refuted. Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-09-16 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
20 October 1967
estimated
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 1553 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 1553 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1967-10-20 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1967-10-20 certain; 1968-7-26 refuted; 1967-10-20 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 1: 1968-07-26 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). 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.
16 September 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1270, 1969-9-16) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1967-3-31. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
26 July 1968
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1553, 1968-7-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1967-10-20. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources
Source
- The New Idea Against the Old ¶7 ("just a little, tiny boy, I could not have been any more than five" (lecture, 1967))
- The New Idea Against the Old ¶7 (I recall when I was just a little, tiny boy, I could not have been any more than five, I heard these stories told in my Sunday school class. And I knew at that very moment that if they said, “If I did not love him more than I loved my father and my mothe…)
- The Signs of the End ¶17 (When I was told the story by my mother, she was the first one to tell me the story of Christ; then in Sunday School, they repeated what Mother told me; only they elaborated it.)