As an unemployed dancer during the Depression he saw men lying seven deep in the heated passage between Gimbel's and Penn Station with nowhere else to sleep, and would have danced in a restaurant just for food.
Date (happened)
c. 1933
estimated · probable · preferred
Reasoning
Passage 549278 says only 'in those days', no year; the same unemployed-dancer/Barbados story is dated 1933 explicitly in passage 553007 (E5). (anchors: 553007)
c. 1933
stated · doubtful
Why
pm-actor-533: pm-actor-533: Typed stated but the passage prints no year, only 'in those days'.
Told / reported
4 June 1971
estimated · possible
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 1928 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 1928 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1971-6-4 at `possible`. All claims on the node: 1969-5-26 refuted; 1971-6-4 possible (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1969-05-26 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`).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.
26 May 1969
stated · refuted
Reasoning
|| v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1928, 1969-5-26) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1971-6-4. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.