This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. France B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Longevity B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	Jeanne Calment was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

(section copied from my talk page) — JFG ^talk 20:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/ This is a source that says that Jeanne Calment was Yvonne Calment so her finally age is 99 not 122? Am I right? Or jeanne Calment was Yvonne Calment bus anyway she lived 122 years old? Ignoto2 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this will really put the cat among the pigeons. EEng 19:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well that is pretty convincing stuff. 99 years old is much more believable. Avoiding a bunch of taxes and gaining a life annuity are pretty good reasons to pull a switch. She would not have guessed she would live to 99 which extend her fake age so far out. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignoto2: The gerontologist and statistician who looked at the data were suspicious of Calment's extremely outlying age of 122, whereas the next 42 oldest women ever died between 115 and 117, except one at 119. They noticed that Calment's only daughter, Yvonne, died of pneumonia at a young age, and Jeanne kept on living in the same household as Yvonne's husband, who never remarried, and raised their child (who was 8 upon his mother's purported death). The alleged story is that Jeanne died of pneumonia in 1934 (aged 59) and that Yvonne and her husband conspired to declare Yvonne dead instead of Jeanne, so they would not have to pay estate taxes. That scenario would be compatible with the "perfect track record" of various administrative proofs of Jeanne's age across decades,[1] because the identity substitution would have been invisible to census officers and the like.

To answer your question directly, the person who died in 1997 would have been Yvonne, aged 99, pretending to be 122. That would also explain a lot of the anomalies in this person's capabilities and living conditions, compared to numerous other documented old ladies: living on her own from 88 to 110, walking without a stick until 114, outliving her blood relatives by three decades (father died 93 years, mother 86, brother 97), neurophysiological tests at 118 demonstrating "verbal memory and language fluency comparable to that of persons with the same level of education in their eighties and nineties." Of course, if she was really just 95 at the time, these results would raise no eyebrows.

If this research is confirmed, that would indeed be quite a bombshell. Damn Russians! Where's Mueller when we need him? — JFG ^talk 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are more prove that Jeanne died at the age of 122 than 99. Ignoto2 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly improbable she lived to 122. Identity theft makes so much more sense - motive, oppotunity, means. I searched for more sources but this is the only one, posted yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they can dig up the grandson-who-might-be-a-son and get some DNA, that will easily settle it. But let's just let this sit for now. EEng 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be convenient that her close relatives had all died, but still, Jeanne allegedly lived in one location from her marriage until after receiving publicity. If in fact it was her daughter posing as her, there should be numerous neighbors, distant family, etc. that would have raised questions decades ago. A 36-year-old posing as a 59-year-old should have been noticeable at the time. The Russians need to have good proof to overcome all the research that has already been done. We need to be cautious about making changes to the article until this has been peer-reviewed.Nerfer (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a good point in saying that it would be hard to not notice a 36-year-old posing as a 59-year-old. Did she dye her hair white, and go around complaining of illness? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a redirect from Yvonne Calment to here. Yvonne has long been mentioned in the article anyway. Legacypac (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...can we move the article to Jeanne and Yvonne Calment?? If not, please explain if anyone can try to show that the recent info is wrong. Georgia guy (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should not until the allegations are more than allegations. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "true believers" are not convinced yet [2] one person is claiming one of the researchers has been banned from the forum. This research is not going to be popular as one person said essentially "if you toss out her claim you have to toss out every claim above 110" Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, even if it was actually Yvonne, officially it was still Jeanne. We would treat Jeanne Calment as the notable alter ego of an otherwise unknown Yvonne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we would have to update the info as "Jeanne Calment, born Yvonne Calment..." Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, all of this would be unprecedented, methinks. Instead of moving the article, we would be changing its scope/subject. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we would have to title the article to make sure it matches the actual subject. Georgia guy (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the subject would still be Jeanne Calment. A different Jeanne Calment perhaps, but unless reliable sources suddenly start referring to her as Yvonne, Jeanne Calment would remain the common name. Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We will not need to change the page name, only update the content. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is only educated speculation so far. If/when a majority of RS end up reporting that Yvonne impersonated her mother over decades, we'll be able to change the article contents accordingly. I don't think the title would change, because the subject's notability has always been under Jeanne's name. The lede might simply become: Jeanne Calment (1875–1934) was a French woman from Arles who was considered the oldest person in the world over several decades. It later emerged that her daughter Yvonne (1898–1997) had lived under her dead mother's identity from 1934 until her own death in 1997, aged 99; she was then believed to be 122 years old. For now, the short sentence about this allegation is fully sufficient. — JFG ^talk 23:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Let's spend no further time on this until there's more -- way more. It's a tantalizing theory but for now it's just that -- tantalizing and a theory. Maybe too tantalizing. EEng 00:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The french insurance book quoted would be a good RS as well. I expect this will get some traction in other RS in time. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that fraud is the right word. [3] Identity theft would be a crime against the dead mother, this would be a crime against the government, the guy who bought her apartment, and fooling the researchers. After so many years and with a life annuity to lose she would be stuck in the deception (assuming the new info bears out) Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Please consider replacing the word Allegation with the word Hypothesis in the section telling about Valery Novoselov's interview. In the interview itself the possibility that Jeanne is Yvonne is called a hypothesis, and it is called a hypothesis by Valery himself. I think it would be more accurate this way as there are no CLAIMS. Citation from the article of how Valery describes it: "After looking at all the data that Nikolay has managed to collect, including the known intentional destruction of the family archive on Jeanna’s orders, we developed a hypothesis that is now being checked. In 1934, there was a death in the Calment family. The official story is that in 1934, Jeanne had lost her only daughter, Yvonne. We think that in reality it was Jeanne who had died, aged almost 59, and her daughter took her name and personality." ^[1] ElenaMilova (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ElenaMilova: Thank you for pointing out this important nuance. The article has been updated accordingly. — JFG ^talk 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also corrected the phrasing in other articles where the study is mentioned: List of French supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians by continent, Oldest people, and List of the verified oldest people. — JFG ^talk 12:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is one line in this article which deals with the recent study indicating that Jeanne was really her daughter who took the original Jeanne's place, and only lived to 99. The study seems to be gaining a lot of recognition, so should the article be rewritten to make it clear that she did not necessarily (if anything I would say, almost certainly didn't) live to age 122? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.220.235 (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to see how this study gains traction. So far we have just one source and in there a ref to an insurance book as a second source. If you have more sources post them please. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's WAY too early to do more than note that this question has been raised. EEng 02:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't resist adding that https://www DOT google.com/amp/s/the110club.com/viewtopic.php%3ft=3663&amp=1 shows what goofball amateurs these longevity fans are. EEng 10:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get that link to work even with replacing the dot, but I did find they banned the member that brought tried to discuss the new article suggesting she was not 122. [4] Not much science amd a whole lot of fan club over there. Legacypac (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the link asks for a login now. I think the first time I got in via some other path. Anyway, try googling Jeanne Calment fraud and if you see a header partway down reading "Did Jeanne Calment really reach 122? - The 110 Club" try that. They keep saying over and over how there's a birth record and baptismal record and identity papers throughout the years, which has nothing to do with the actual question: is this the same person? EEng 12:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to help build Draft:Verification of supercentenarians. — JFG ^talk 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got in some way but some parts of the forum are indead locked down. They blocked the user posting links to the source disputing the claim - which says a lot.

• https://medium.com/@yurideigin/jaccuse-why-122-year-longevity-record-may-be-fake-af87fc0c3133 very interesting read with many pictures.
• russian presentation https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=41B8120C989594F7!180323&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&wdo=2&authkey=!AKRAZiUa0ZxPDkI

Legacypac (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"indead"? Your humor is so disrespectful! EEng 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I undid any mention until this can be proven as right now we have a hypothesis supported by a singe source. If that is guaranteed inclusion then why not include everyone claiming to be over the age of 122 on List of the verified oldest people? I don't see how this would pass WP:N without third party coverage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I restored it. A hypothesis doesn't have to be "proven as right" for us to report it on its face. EEng 05:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have 4 sources now. Two articles in English, a presentation in Russian and a completely separate book about insurance. Indead was strickly a typo (typing with my thumbs on mobile). I'll leave it though, as it's pretty funny. Legacypac (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"strickly a typo", huh? You're a sly one, Legacypac. EEng 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the restoration. This hypothesis is not presented as fact, and is now supported by several sources It is not a wacko theory: it's plausible on its face. As encyclopedists, we are not in the business of deciding the truth of any fact, only to duly report credible hypotheses as such (see WP:VNT). We are not giving undue weight to this hypothesis, by isolating it to a single 4-line section. A brief mention in the lede is in my opinion warranted, due to the potential impact of the alternative story. All in all, the article looks well-balanced given the current state of knowledge and sources. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the newly-published articles about the Yvonne hypothesis[5] mentions that Wikipedia has mislabeled a picture of Yvonne as being of Jeanne aged 22. The picture in question shows a young woman dressed in traditional Arlésienne costume, standing in front of a church portal. Checking the origin of this picture, File:JeanneCalmentaged22.jpg, I noticed that it was sourced to the GRG gallery, with author unknown. The uploader was the respected Dr. Blofeld in 2008. Looking in turn at the GRG gallery, I noticed that the picture was labeled "Daughter Yvonne". Wait, how can this be? Aha, GRG just changed the label: the archived version of 19 August 2018 still says "At age ~22", and the next snapshot on 23 November says "Daughter Yvonne".

The Medium article exhibits a copy of this picture as excerpted from a biography in French, "Jeanne: la passion de vivre" (1995,[6] reprinted 1998[7]), where two pictures on the same page are clearly labeled "up: Jeanne Calment dressed as an Arlésienne", "down: Yvonne, Jeanne Calment's daughter".[8] Sometime, somebody somewhere at GRG conflated the bottom picture with a picture of Jeanne, and here we are correcting the record after many years.

To avoid obfuscating the issue for readers who may come here after having read the Medium piece, I would suggest labeling the picture thus: Photograph of Yvonne Calment (date unknown), mistakenly labeled for several years as Jeanne aged 22. Comments welcome. If any of our fellow editors has a physical copy of the 1995 book, we should use it to re-scan the page and cite it with proper attribution. — JFG ^talk 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a first edit to correct the record.[9] Feel free to improve. — JFG ^talk 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I undid your edit here as the source is not reliable. Medium is a website that anyone can join to publish writings and documents. The author "Yuri Deigin" simply states that he is an editor over at Open Longevity (English and Russian sites). The question would then be is this a reliable website? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is just a publishing platform like any other. The author provides a scanned page from Jeanne's biography that clearly attributes the photo in question to her daughter Yvonne. Is Jeanne's biography a reliable enough source for you? --TrueGentleman99 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the published biography book is good enough for me. The image has been mislabeled for years. This is an important piece for understanding the subject and her daughter (or is the subject the daughter). I've undone the series of edits that removed the image and questioned the source. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree both that a better source is needed and that hiding the image was excessive. The biography titled Jeanne: la passion de vivre is probably good enough, and JFG did already suggest we cite it directly, rather than citing a secondary source that draws upon it. However, contrary to what Legacypac asserted in his edit summary, the work is not an autobiography. It is credited to "Gabriel Simonoff, with a preface by Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff". Citizen Canine (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stupidly typed "auto", realized it right away, but can't change the edit summary. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This attributes nothing as he is comparing two pictures. The author is not vetted in the field by any third party, provide a third party source on the matter and you have a better case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The book it is scanned from is a third party source - you reverted me even though you have no support in this discussion. The benefit of the linked source is anyone can easily see the scanned page with a click while the underlying book is hard to obtain. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a backup source on how the author reached his conclusion.... Deigin used a book he scanned from a third party source yes... but this still doesn't tell how Yuri Deigin is vetted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vetting of that source is not relevant we know that the photo isa of the daughter. The book shows it and here is another source http://www.grg.org/JCalmentGallery.htm Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with that source, why don't you restore the picture with the caption "Daughter Yvonne"? The bit about that picture being "long misidentified as showing Jeanne at 22 years old" is a conclusion reached by that questionable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that it is verifiably a picture of Yvonne. Then it follows that it was "long misidentified as showing Jeanne at 22 years old", given that it was so labeled both here on Wikipedia from its inclusion until a few days ago, and by the GRG. That's hardly improper synthesis. Citizen Canine (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't follow that....you are adding that narrative in based on the biased source. The GNG source simply says "daughter Yvonne", it says nothing about the picture being "long misidentified". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing history of the picture and caption, both sourced to GRG, proves that the picture was long mislabeled. Of course it's hard to convey this information without quoting the article that first raised attention about this serious editorial mistake. No inference is made in our text about which of the two young women pictured most looks like the old woman who died in 1997; we should just document the proper labeling of Yvonne's picture, which can be adequately cited to the Simonoff biography first published in 1995. — JFG ^talk 15:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GRG source that you cite has itself been mislabeling the photo in question as "Jeanne at age ~22": as far back as 2007 and as recently as October 2018. So "long misidentified as showing Jeanne at 22 years old" is factually correct. This information should be reinstated in the article. TrueGentleman99 (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing controversy. I am not sure a side of the argument as made by an internet site constitute enough of reliable source for saying as a fact in the caption it is not Jeanne, although saying it is now disputed in the light of new research whether it is her would be fine.Overagainst (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Deigin piece has lots of analysis why the photo is of Yvone the daughter: https://medium.com/@yurideigin/jaccuse-why-122-year-longevity-record-may-be-fake-af87fc0c3133

Chicagobeers (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the quality of the arguments that it is Yvonne, it is that the analysis and conclusions of Deigin and Zak does not consitute a secondary source, and hence to state something as a fact there needs to be more than Deigin and Zak's piece, which is just a source sufficient to quote their opinion as such without pronouncing on whether they are right, but someone here wants the caption to baldly state as a fact it is Yvonne. The news media haven't even done that, and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia.Overagainst (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using the eye catching caption of a photo of the daughter for asserting that a photo of the daughter was misidentified thereby implying that mistake was by the verification team, without secondary sources for whether they made that mistake, or whether it had any significance for verification of the identity and age of Jeanne is WP:UNDUE in my opinion. At minimum, the tendentious text in the caption "Previously, this picture had been misidentified as "Jeanne Calment at age ~22"" should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is more trouble than it's worth. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus in December that the photo in question is of Yvonne and hence had been previously misidentified by Wikipedia and other sources. @JFG:, @Legacypac:, @Citizen Canine:, @EEng: were all in agreement. Only @Knowledgekid87: was against. At the time the question was settled and the "previously misidentified as Jeanne" caption stayed. Recently, @Knowledgekid87: has deleted it and insists it is irrelevant. However, that photo and its proper identification as Yvonne constitutes a significant part of the Russian researchers claims.

Ultimately here are the facts:

• the photo is now labeled as Yvonne, as per the Gerontology Research Group source

http://www.grg.org/JCalmentGallery.htm

• the photo was previously labeled as Jeanne both on Wikipedia (here is a 2008 page) and GRG "as far back as 2007 and as recently as October 2018" as per @TrueGentleman99: above
• recent Deigin article points to Paris Match's interview of Jeanne in 1988 as the possible source of the mislabeling:

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/oh-jeanne-why-so-young-8e8019967bfc

Based on the above, I propose that the caption "previously misidentified as Jeanne" be reinstated. Chicagobeers (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed - label it as "previously misidentified as Jeanne". It is absolutely relevent. Legacypac (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: Here is the relevant quote from the Zak paper that it was only after Russian researchers contacted GRG that they changed the photo label to Yvonne:

The only good facial photo (Fig. 3D) which, until recently, was labeled as Jeanne on various Internet sources (Wikipedia in multiple languages, GRG's site, etc.) turned out to be the photo of Yvonne [27] (Fig. 3C, bottom), which was confirmed by Michel Allard in personal correspondence. Now, after Dr. Novoselov's official request to GRG, it was renamed as Daughter Yvonne (http://www.grg.org/jcalmentgallery.htm).

Chicagobeers (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in a discussion I had with Overagainst on my talk page, it would be absurd to include the photo and not mention that it was previously identified as Jeanne, given the context and how widespread and perennial the mistake was. Yvonne's close resemblance to her mother and the confusion of photos depicting them are clearly relevant to the hypothesis under discussion, so the picture has relevance beyond the mere fact that it is of Yvonne. The caption needs to explain this. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the misidentification needs to be mentioned.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still against inclusion based on the rationale given by @Overagainst:. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to take sides and decide who had it mislabeled, but we definitely should report that a picture now captioned as Yvonne had for a long time been captioned as Jeanne. Chicagobeers (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"for a long time" by whom? Are GRG and Wikipedia the only two sources around? Adding a mention of Wikipedia would fall under WP:CIRC as it uses Wikipedia as a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Please allow time for people to weigh in before establishing a consensus. These discussions take time and this is a sensitive topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I'm disappointed to see you edit-war over this caption. A majority of editors have expressed their support for including an explanation as to why this picture of Yvonne Calment is even here. The mislabeling was uncovered as part of the identity substitution hypothesis, but that does not even matter: we must correct it and own up to our mistake for the sake of readers. Regarding your WP:CIRC argument, we would in fact be encouraging citogenesis if we did not explain what happened. As I noted at the top of this thread, the picture was uploaded in 2008 based on its appearance and caption in the GRG gallery. Over the intervening years, several sources referred to Wikipedia as showing a picture of Jeanne aged 22. The discrepancy was highlighted when recent articles looking at pictures of Calment "discovered" that the same picture (cropped differently) had been published in the 1995 biography by George Simonoff, where it was correctly captioned as a photograph of Yvonne. Subsequently, Michel Allard confirmed the correct captioning, and the GRG corrected their gallery. I was the first one to correct the caption here on Wikipedia,[10] and I am still very much convinced that the longstanding error must be explained to our readers, especially as some readers may come to Wikipedia after reading in the Deigin piece that we had it wrong. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both know that content from Wikipedia is user edited and not reliable unless backed up by a source. We even have a disclaimer [11] which states "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing my point, but I'm happy to address yours. The proposed caption does not use Wikipedia as a source to validate a statement; it uses an archived version of this Wikipedia article to verify the fact that this photograph was mislabeled on Wikipedia between 2008 and 2018. This passes WP:V. The identification as Yvonne is sourced to the 1995 biography. — JFG ^talk 18:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerontology Research Group and Wikipedia are highly influential sources on Jeanne Calment. GRG is now sourced by Wikipedia in support of captioning the photo as Yvonne. Previously GRG captioned the photo as Jeanne (at least between 2007 and 2018). This should be reported in the article. Other sources that captioned or still caption the photo as Jeanne:

• Paris Match interview of Jeanne from 1988

• https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

• The 110 Club: The World's Largest Supercentenarian Forum

Chicagobeers (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the caption to reflect the above consensus. I've omitted the Deigin sources that @Knowledgekid87: finds questionable. Here is the current version:

Daughter Yvonne Calment in front of the Church of St. Trophime in Arles, date unknown.^[1][2] Originally this photo was captioned as Jeanne by a 1988 Paris Match article.^[3] It was also captioned as Jeanne on the Gerontology Research Group's website between 2007^[4] and 2018^[5] until Russian researchers contacted the GRG, after which the caption was changed to Yvonne.^[6]

Chicagobeers (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

"The proposed caption does not use Wikipedia as a source to validate a statement; it uses an archived version of this Wikipedia article to verify the fact that this photograph was mislabeled on Wikipedia between 2008 and 2018"

So what has that to do with anything encyclopedic for the article about Jeanne Calment, eh? All this was gone through before when the long irrelevant caption now back in was removed. Simonoff, Gabriel (1995). Jeanne Calment : La passion de vivre [Jeanne Calment: a passion for life] (in French). Éditions du Rocher. p. Illustrations. ISBN 978-2-268-01938-3. had it correctly captioned and so what is the significance of Wikipedia later having it incorrectly captioned? None at all. This article is having the caption used to highlight personal research on a tangential matter. The correct ID was in a 1999 French book so a recent mistake by someone long after the verification by French doctors NOT working for Wikipedia is neither here not there. It's a relatively giant caption off on a byway about the photo because someone does not want to put it in a ref or note so the prominence will draw reader to it and make them think it is significant and thus waste readers time. If this breathless stuff about a mistake must be there, put it in a note and back to the simple caption identifying the location and the woman as Yvonne please.Overagainst (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The labeling history is significant because several sources have pointed to Wikipedia as mislabeling the picture, so that readers coming to our article after reading that need to understand why it is now correctly captioned. I agree that it's better to keep those details in a footnote. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why, in the picture, is Yvonne dressed as a charwoman? I thought they had money. EEng 03:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Explains how this photo helps prove there was a switch. It's a dress up event that only makes sense if the daughter is pictured. Also comparing the photo of the daughter to the mother it sure looks like the daughter is the same woman who was supposed to live to 122. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed the joke. EEng 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and I still don't get it. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just that this is apparently some traditional festive outfit, but every time I saw it over the years I thought, "Well, I guess she's dressed for doing the spring cleaning, scrubbing the floors, and so on." EEng 05:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added this info to the French version of this article. Interestingly the issue was already raised on the talk page there over 2 years ago by User:Hbourj. Citizen Canine (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia discusses the issue of Yvonne being dressed as a charwoman? Wow, those French are really fashion-conscious! EEng 16:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry I got confused as there are two sections here with the same title. I meant a French user forwarded this same fraud hypothesis back in 2016, when it was dismissed as original research as he didn't cite any secondary sources. Just saying it's curious. The French Wikipedia has that same image of Yvonne, which was mistakenly labeled as Jeanne until I corrected it yesterday. And yes, I get that you're being tongue-in-cheek. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My tongue's so firmly in cheek that surgical removal has been recommended. EEng 02:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you are joking about this woman when she could have living family members out there is distasteful at the best. None of this has so far been proven true so I have no idea why we as editors here are making our own conclusions by comparing pictures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, get a grip. And if you knew anything at all about the subject, you'd know she definitively has no living relatives, as if that mattered. I have nothing to do with any comparing of pictures except for this stress-relieving interlude on an irrelevant point. And I've been the one explaining (in another thread on this page) that it's not our job to make comparisons to decide who's who in the pictures. On the other hand, something doesn't have to be "proven true" for us to report it as a hypothesis. EEng 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Jeanne_Calment#V%C3%A9racit%C3%A9_?_Voici_une_hypoth%C3%A8se_..._qui_semble_m%C3%A9riter_une_enqu%C3%AAte_approfondie

"Une photo de Jeanne Calment avec sa mère, vers 1925 avait été publiée. On ne le trouve pas sur internet. Sur cette photo, la personne de gauche ressemblait à la première photo, c'était une femme de 50 ans, solide, aux grands yeux, la vraie Jeanne Calment. A sa droite, Yvonne Calment, environ 27 ans, brune, mince, plus petite que sa mère, les yeux bien enfoncés dans les orbites, cernés. Et Sans aucun doute la "Jeanne" Calment que nous avons connue ressemblait à la seconde."

Translation: A photo of Jeanne Calment with her mother, around 1925 had been published. We do not find it on the internet. In this picture, the person on the left looked like the first picture, it was a woman of 50 years, solid, with big eyes, the real Jeanne Calment. On his right, Yvonne Calment, about 27 years old, dark, slender, smaller than his mother, eyes deep in the orbits, surrounded. And without a doubt the "Jeanne" Calment we knew was like the second.

"La photo que vous reliez n'est pas celle que j'ai vu, mais elle y ressemble. " Translation: The photo you are connecting is not the one I saw, but it looks like it.

In Jeanne Calment's French page, a French Wikipedia user (hbourj) mentioned and described about a picture of Jeanne with her daughter which is not available on the Internet. Hbourj also said that it is not really the one on the Internet although it looks liked it. Does anyone have it? What's the source? Is it from a book/article/etc.? Can someone scan/take a picture of it and upload it to the Internet (imgur.com)? I'm curious to know what it looks like according to his description about the facial characteristics. I think it would be interesting to see the picture to understand his explanation regrading facial characteristics differences and will help in providing more clues to the current fraud hypothesis being carried out.

I tried to contact hbourj by emailing and leaving a message on his user discussion page and haven't receive any reply yet. Hopefully I can get some answers here just in case he is inactive.

Or is it this one? If yes, can anyone provide the full image? This was from the investigation research slideshow. https://imgur.com/a/I8eV4rO --YHL532 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YHL532. I think the image hbourj is referring to is this one. It is unfortunately the only such image which has survived to the destruction of the family records on "Jeanne"'s orders. It is included in the Medium article [13]. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did hbourj say that is not the one he is referring to when another Wikipedia user asked him? He said it's not the one he saw but looks similar to it. Anyone thinks there's some other photo not available online? Did "Jeanne" order to destroy the family records too? I thought "Jeanne" only ordered to burn photos.

Une photographie de Jeanne avec sa fille est disponible sur internet [2] (s'agit-il de celle-ci ?). Translation: A photograph of Jeanne with her daughter is available on the internet [2] (is it this one?).

"La photo que vous reliez n'est pas celle que j'ai vu, mais elle y ressemble. " Translation: The photo you are connecting is not the one I saw, but it looks like it. --YHL532 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. He didn't say where he saw the original photo. It could be he somehow has privileged access to it. More likely though it is in one of the print sources and simply hasn't been made available online, at least not anywhere that's highly visible. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Several places I've read that the old lady had family records destroyed. Very strange behaviour for someone with nothing to hide. The height and eye color are another smoking gun. I'm not convinced eye color fades and changes with age, or that some women don't get shorter with extreme age. At some point we will need to decide when the weight of evidence on one side outweighs the weight of evidence on older sources. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No, we won't decide when the weight of the evidence on one side outweighs [etc etc]. We will wait to see what new reliable sources say, and it will be a long time before they take a definite stand. In the meantime, we can only report this as (at first) a new hypothesis, then (maybe for an intermediate period) as a controversy, and then (eventually) as a decided point one way or another. But that last stage will likely (and I'm not kidding about this) only come 10 to 20 years from now, because that's how long it takes for considered published opinion to become settled on something like this.

For a very similar situation that took about 18 years to resolve, see Talk:Eubie_Blake#Blake's_Correct_Birth_Year_-_1883_-_is_Provided_by_Blake_Himself_on_"The_Tonight_Show_with_Johnny_Carson". In brief, for much of his life pioneering jazzist Eubie Blake said he was born in 1883; he died in 1983 at "100 years old". About 2000 evidence began to emerge that he had actually been born in 1887, and this evidence became stronger over the next few years. But it took a further ten years for authoritative sources to publish new papers, issue revised editions, and so on so that we (Wikipedia) could simply state the 1887 date as fact, not controversy. That's probably the kind of time it will take in this case as well – though at this point we don't know in which direction the chips will eventually fall, of course. EEng 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not take 18 years to solve this. Age was not the defining characteristic in the Blake case where here it is the only part of her life that is notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it shouldn't take 18 years, but it may very well. We can't control how fast sources get to work on this. EEng 06:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened up a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Jeanne Calment on the Fringe Theory noticeboard. The lack of third party sourcing is an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The post is based on attacking one of the sources, claiming it is the only source. Please read the rest of the threads on this page before starting at fringe theories with a false premise. The source you attacked is not even the first source - we have a presentation in Russian, an insurance book, and the source discussed at hTalk:Jeanne_Calment#Jeanne_vs_Yvonne which was the first article to come to Wikipedia attention. If anything is fringe it is that Clement lived 122+ years, so much longer than anyone else on record.

1. https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/

2. “L’assurance et ses secrets” (Insurance and its secrets) by Jean-Pierre Daniel a book published in 2007.

“Chacun se souvient de Jeanne Calment officiellement morte à 122 ans, le 4 août 1997, Il avait été dit à l’époque que cette dame bénéficiait d’une rente viagère, ce qui etait vrai. Celle-ci etait versée par une grande société française que cette longévité exceptionelle ne réjouissait pas. La société était d’autant plus marrie qu’elle savait pertinemment qu’elle ne payait pas Jeanne Calment, mais sa fille. En effect, au décès de la vraie Jeanne Calment, sa fille qui évidemment n’était plus une gamine, avait endossé l’identité de sa mère pour continuer à toucher la rente. La société d’assurance avait découvert l’usurpation d’identité, mais en accord – ou à la demande ? – des pouvoirs publics, elle n’avait pas souhaité la dénoncer tant le personnage de la “doyenne des Français” était devenu mythique.” translated to

“Everyone remembers Jeanne Calment, who has officially died at age 122 on August 4, 1997. It was said at the time that this lady had benefited from having a life annuity, which was true. This was paid by a large French company that was not happy at all with this exceptional longevity. The company was even more upset as it knew that it had been paying not Jeanne Calment, but her daughter. In reality, after the death of the real Jeanne Calment, her daughter who obviously was no longer a child, had taken her mother’s identity to keep receiving the annuity. The insurance company had discovered identity theft, but in agreement with – or on the demand of? – the public authorities, it had not wished to reveal the truth, given how much the character of the “grandmother of the French” had become legendary.”

3. Medium article [14]

4. The presentation in Russian from the researcher and the statistician

Also look at the graph here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/ Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that this is FRINGE is ridiculous. It's a perfectly sensible hypothesis. Give it up. EEng 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, I think in fact there are 5 sources, not 4. The mathematician had released the research paper here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329773795_Jeanne_Calment_the_secret_of_longevity This is also a source, right? You missed out this one. YHL532 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left an edit warring caution for Knowledgekid87. [15] since they insist on modifying the agreed to caption on the Yvonne photo. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been 2 reverts, and there was no decided upon caption for the picture. This was already discussed at Talk:Jeanne Calment#Picture of Yvonne. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Do I have to turn the hose on you two? (For the record Kk87, it can still be edit warring even if you don't pass 3RR.) I hope my recent edits are satisfactory to everyone; I wouldn't want anyone's longevity cut short by violence. EEng 21:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Time for everybody to move on. Merry Christmas and God bless us, everyone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I'm a bit tired of drive-by warnings prompted by uninvolved, uninformed buttinskis who push the panic button [16] without knowing what's going on. I received thanks from all three other editors involved [17] [18] [19] and everyone's perfectly happy -- see [20]. Where participants in a series of edits are all experienced editors, an editwarring report request for page protection should come from one or more of them -- people actually involved who understand what's going on -- to avoid wastes of time like this. EEng 02:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: Experienced editors who have served multiple blocks for edit-warring ought to know what an edit-warring report is, and isn't. No one has filed an edit-warring report, all that was done was requesting temporary full protection at RFPP to help the experienced editors stay out of harm's way, and not get themselves blocked, again. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 07:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, RPP not 3RR report – the point's the same; you're not helping yourself here. I get the block log thing so frequently from your type that I have a bit of a canned response for it: You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page...

This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).

... not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers", this comment from a wise and respected arb [21] and so on. I leave all my blocks on my user and talk pages so all may judge for themselves.

There was a dispute between two editors (not me) over an UNDUE tag, but then I stepped in and made a series of edits that satisfied everyone, and on which the others built. You'd know that if you took the trouble to review the diffs. Next time, either take the time or don't butt in. EEng 08:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you not only don't know what an edit-warring report is, but also don't know what edit-warring is (hint: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."). You made four reverts (by the definition in the quote) in less than 24h, and thus violated 3RR, so you owe me a thanks for helping you avoid a block that you might have had problems squirming out of... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tom, go have a Merry Christmas that does not involve insulting the intelligence or editing skills of EEng Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<rolls eyes> You're making a fool of yourself. When the other editors involved all thank you for your edits, then build on those edits by making additions and adjustments of their own, it's not editwarring. Please, in future leave the evaluation of article editing patterns to those who actually edit articles. You seem determined to find trouble where there's none. You probably should also read WP:Reverting to gain a more nuanced idea of what a revert is. EEng 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. I know what counts as a revert per 3RR, which is what matters, but thanks for showing me that you're a person of many talents, not only making totally obnoxious "joke" edits on notice boards, and edit-warring to keep them there, even in archives, but also acting as a total jerk against other editors on article talk pages... <plonk> - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Temper, temper! EEng 16:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has always been a contentious topic area. No need to drag unrelated issues into make it worse, there's nothing here that can't be worked out. It never ceases to amaze me how this subject manages to do this to people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a paradigm of a fringe theory. Has anyone actually read this unpublished garbage? Come on,Wikipedia is better than this.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who understands that language spoken by French people in France tell us if this [22] video has the her unflattering comments on van Gogh? If so we should use it in the article instead of the youtube link there now. EEng 03:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the video, she describes van Gogh as ugly, alcoholic and how meeting him turned out to be a big disappointment. No mention of visiting brothels though. --McSly (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, is this a different interview from the one in the Youtube vid now linked in the article? EEng 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, different interviews done a few years apart (1989 for INA and 1994 for the one on Youtube). --McSly (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made this edit [23]; turns out this vid was already used in the article. EEng 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the INA interview of 1989, Calment says that her husband introduced her to Van Gogh, which is totally absurd, as she was 12 or 13 when allegedly meeting him in 1888. The narrator also states that Jeanne's "father and husband" sold material to Van Gogh. However Jeanne's father had nothing to do with the family store: it belonged to her uncle. Conversely, Yvonne's father, was indeed coming from the branch of the family that owned the store. So, in the Yvonne hypothesis, we have an old lady re-telling and possibly embellishing a tale from her actual father, who was in fact Jeanne's husband. (He may indeed have sold stuff to the artist, because he was 20 in 1888.) In the "old Jeanne" hypothesis, we have an even older lady vividly remembering the scene where her "husband" introduces her to Van Gogh (So my husband told him: "Mr Van Gogh, let me introduce you to my wife." I said "That's Van Gogh?" He didn't move from his canvas.) when she was still a teenager, eight years before she got married. Yvonne's story is at least plausible, Jeanne's story makes absolutely no sense. Yeah, some age validation there! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This all amounts to original research and discredits the dozens of studies done on the matter. For now this all amounts to an unproven hypothesis as there are no mainstream sources covering any of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and we do present the Yvonne story as just that, a hypothesis. Allow me some communication with other interested editors on the talk page, as I happen to speak French and could understand what was said in the cited video. I do not suggest to add any of this to the article. — JFG ^talk 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's skip any discussion of how these interviews interact with the validity of the longevity claim, the impostor hypothesis, etc. But we can certainly present the subject's own words. If the relevant segments aren't too long, would it be asking too much to request a verbatim transcript from both vids? EEng 02:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The INA source is interspersed with "funny" commentary by the reporter ad-libbing about his childhood and the will to die; I don't think a full transcript would be very useful. I can try and cite relevant passages from the lady's utterances, though. Her tone of voice is quite interesting, especially when she makes a show of despising Van Gogh, but we can't convey that without delving into WP:OR. Just watched the 1994 video as well: she says that she met Van Gogh towards the "very end of his life" (that would be 1890), she repeats that he bought canvas from her husband, and she states that Van Gogh was "well known in the city", "not in good shape", "burned by alcohol", and went to brothels "not for women, but to drink". Personal note: how would a 13-year-old girl be aware of all this gossip? Never mind that she wouldn't marry until she turned 21 and the painter was long dead. — JFG ^talk 03:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, verbatim interspersed with ... EEng 03:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article also points out inconsistencies in Jeanne Calment's Van Gogh story. It quotes a French interview that has not been previously sourced on Wikipedia. TrueGentleman99 (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A quick glance at the Paris Match interview from 1988 reveals the following discrepancies:

• She says she had brown hair and green eyes, but her ID card from the 1930s specifies black hair and black eyes.
• Claims they had an automobile, putatively a Peugeot, dès le début de mon mariage (from the start of my marriage). Given that Jeanne married in 1896 and Peugeot built about 100 cars that year for a French population of roughly 40 million people, her husband would have been quite an exceptional man, probably the first in his town, and one of the very first in Provence, to buy a car.
• Claims that she took her baptême de l'air at age 40, i.e. in 1915. That would have been the middle of World War I, and it's quite doubtful that any aviator would take a tourist lady up for a spin on a biplane. Much more plausible for Yvonne in 1938, when commercial aviation had become viable.
• The Van Gogh story is more realistic there: she says she was not yet married when he came to the store to buy canvas. Still calls him ugly, and says he scared children.
• She says she attended the inauguration of the Arles museum with Frédéric Mistral when she was "just married". That happened in 1899, three years after her wedding, and one year after her baby girl was born. Hmm, no spontaneous mention of the baby in that context?
• She says Yvonne died of pleurisy, whereas our article says she died of pneumonia. Need to double-check sources on that detail.

Nothing very conclusive one way or another: people can mis-remember dates or mix up stories. However it's hard to explain how she could be wrong about her own hair and eye color! — JFG ^talk 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, one cannot assume that Jeanne never heard anything of van Gogh after he died. Jeanne surely heard and read stories and rumours of him long after his death and these feature in retelling. Also, it doesn't tell us anything about Jeanne vs Yvonne, as Yvonne could have heard stories of van Gogh from her parents and other older people who had met her and could have simply retold them as her own.--Mikoyan21 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The videos of her talking about Van Gogh are a primary source for other reporting we use. We SHOULD evaluate questionable sources against other sources and try to verify against known facts. Her own words, when tested against a known facts outside her control like Van Gogh's death date, reveal what can only be a lie. Why did the experts who used the Van Gogh story not pick up on the absurdity of her claim? It makes the whole "modern standards of age verification" process pretty suspect. Sorry but an obvious lie is an obvious lie - but the superold fan club is blind to facts that they don't like. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it to WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was generally assumed that she was exaggerating the Van Gogh story (it was known to have grown over the years).©Geni (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have a number of experienced editors here fully capable of assessing sources. If you have an issue with a source amd need some outside assestence go get it. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Video transcripts

1989 interview

Difficult to parse because the sound is bad, Calment's voice is sometimes muffled, and the journalist's questions have been edited out, and interspersed with his musings on childhood and aging. Accordingly, I'll transcribe Calment's words verbatim, and only paraphrase the reporter's questions. — JFG ^talk 04:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Teulé, reporter: Jeanne Calment is 114 years old. She is the oldest woman in the world, and the last human alive to have seen Van Gogh. Wasn't he kind of a bad guy, Van Gogh?
Jeanne Calment: C'était un alcoolique fieffé. He was an utter alcoholic.
Teulé: Her father and her husband sold canvas and paintbrushes to Van Gogh. One day her husband endeavoured to introduce her to the artist. Madame Calment was not impressed at all.
Calment: Alors mon mari lui dit "Monsieur Van Gogh, je vous présente ma femme." Then my husband told him "Mr. Van Gogh, this is my wife." J'ai dit "C'est ça, Van Gogh?" I said "That's it, Van Gogh?" Van Gogh, il tenait les toiles, vous m'entendez? Il a pas quitté ses toiles. Il était assis, il tripotait ses toiles, il se retourne et me regarde. Van Gogh, he was holding the canvas, can you hear me? He did not leave his canvas. He was sitting, he was twiddling with his canvas, he turns around and looks at me. (moves head up and down) Il me toise, mmh-beuh, et dit ça va ça va. He stares me down, mmh-bah, and says OK, OK.
(cut)
Calment: J'ai dit "C'est ça Van Gogh?" Quelle déception! Laid! Une laide figure, et le bonnet jusque là. I said "That's it, Van Gogh?" What a letdown! Ugly! An unsightly face, and a cap down to here. (shows her eyebrows) Mon Dieu, qu'il était laid! God he was so ugly!
Teulé: And two years later he committed suicide, because he was tired of living. Unlike you. It seems you enjoy it?
Calment: Oui, de bien vivre, oui. Je suis pas malade. Je n'ai aucune maladie. Yes, living well, yes. I'm not sick. I have no sickness at all. Mon organisme n'a encore pas bougé. Vous m'entendez ? My body has not moved yet. You hear me?
Teulé: Yeah, yeah. When was the last time a man told you "I love you"?
Calment: Comment vous voulez que je me rappelle de ça ? How am I supposed to remember this? À cent ans près… Within a hundred years…
Teulé: The guy who bought your house via life estate when you were 90 must be pissed.
Calment: Oui. Il trouve que je vis trop. Je me fais désirer. Alors chaque année je m'excuse: "Excusez moi, je suis encore là. Yes. He thinks I live too much. I make myself desired. So each year I apologize: "Excuse me, I'm still here."
(cut)
Calment: Je suis en compétition avec Mathusalem. Vous connaissez Mathusalem ? I'm in a competition with Methuselah. You know Methuselah?
Teulé: Yeah, yeah.
Calment: Eh bien je suis en compétition avec lui. Je suis gourmande. Well, I'm competing with him. I'm greedy. (laughs)

1994 interview

Much clearer sound. Mostly uncut footage of a doctor asking her precise questions, and her direct answers. — JFG ^talk 04:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor: Vous avez connu Van Gogh ? You have known Van Gogh?
Calment: Oui. Yes.
Doctor: Racontez nous comment vous l'avez connu. Tell us how you knew him.
Calment: Je l'ai connu à la fin de ses jours. Tout à fait à la fin. Il était laid. Il était brûlé par l'alcool. I knew him towards his last days. Quite at the end. He was ugly. He was burnt by alcohol.
Doctor: Où est-ce que vous l'avez connu ? Where did you know him?
Calment: C'est à dire, il venait au magasin. Il peignait encore un peu. Il venait chercher des toiles. Alors mon mari servait des toiles, pour peindre. Well, he used to come to the store. He still painted a little. He came to pick up canvas. So my husband served him canvas, to paint.
Doctor: Et c'est Van Gogh qui les choisissait ? And was it Van Gogh who picked them?
Calment: Ah oui, il les touchait. C'est pas mon mari; mon mari il y entendait rien, lui. C'est lui qui les choisissait. Il les palpait… Mais les derniers temps, c'était plus ça. Oh yes, he touched them. It wasn't my husband; my husband he didn't understand anything about that. He picked them himself. He fiddled with them… But towards the end, it wasn't going well.
Doctor: À l'époque, il était connu Van Gogh, en ville ? At that time, was he well known, Van Gogh, in town?
Calment: Oui. Il fréquentait les maisons de tolérance. Pas pour les femmes, comme pour les maîtresses qu'il payait trop cher. Il donnait de l'argent pour boire. Yes. He visited the brothels. Not for the women, like for mistresses that he paid too much. He gave money to drink.
(cut)
Doctor: Vos études ont duré jusqu'à quel âge ? Until what age did you study?
Calment: Jusqu'à l'âge du brevet. Du brevet. Le brevet classique. Until the age of the brevet (O-Level). The brevet. The classical one.
Doctor: Ensuite, qu'est-ce que vous faisiez ? And then what did you do?
Calment: Après, je suis restée avec mes parents, j'ai attendu le mariage. Pendant ce temps, je faisais de la peinture, je fortifiais mon piano, les arts décoratifs. Then I stayed with my parents, waiting for marriage. Meanwhile, I was painting, I improved my piano, decorative arts.
Doctor: Qu'est-ce que vous aviez fait comme peinture ? What kind of painting did you do?
Calment: Un panneau, un paravent avec cinq branches. Chaque branche avait une grande gerbe de fleurs. A panel, a screen with five branches. Each branch had a large wreath of flowers.
Doctor: Vous vous rappelez les fleurs que vous aviez peintes ? Do you remember the flowers you painted?
Calment: Oui: des roses, des iris, des anémones, des soleils. Yes: roses, iris, anemones, sunflowers.
(cut)
Nurse: On y va. Let's go.
Calment: Allez allez. Allons-y, gaiement. Go, go. Let's go, merrily.
Nurse: Gaiement, je sais pas, mais on y va. (laughs) Merrily, I'm not sure, but we're going.
Calment: En avant, marche ! Forward, march!

• WOW! Great work! And to be clear, the 1989 vid is http://boutique.ina.fr/video/CAB89003100/jeanne-calment-114-and-a-rencontre-van-gogh.fr.html (which would seem to not have a copyright problem) and the 1994 is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB_yIlnaryg which we has no apparent copyright status (so we probably can't link to it). Or is there any chance you found the 1994 vid somewhere else? EEng 06:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did not look for other sources for the 1994 interview. The video comes from a France 3 regional TV program. I believe we can link to it, and credit it to France 3. — JFG ^talk 08:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't consider it a big deal, but others will, so... we're really not supposed to link to apparent copyvios (which this seems to be) but I don't know of any restriction on referring to it, given that's it's obviously authentic. So I believe we can cite it by giving the date and so on, just omitting the link. I know that seems weird but I think it meets policy. EEng 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just like we cite an offline book. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 please stop these kinds of edits [24]. Not helpful. There are not dozens of studies confirming this ladies extreme age. Legacypac (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Van Gogh story was used to "prove" her extreme age but part of proving extreme age is checking the reasonableness of the timing of life events and memories. The Van Gogh story falls apart when you run the math and fact check against who ran the store. Stories that don't make sense tend to be lies. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is more WP:OR, look at the sources throughout the article that has her as 122, are we to discredit every single one of those? Your edits are unhelpful as you are trying to make this hypothesis as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not confuse edits to the article and conversation on the talk page. — JFG ^talk 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation here has provided no need for a header, this is about keeping with a WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is talking about two interviews of Jeanne Calment. If you'd like to discuss the "Fraud hypothesis" heading that you want to remove, please open a separate thread. — JFG ^talk 03:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what the heck is @Legacypac: talking about? [25] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now that Legacypac started talking about something else. I have added a talk thread header accordingly. Now we can discuss the videos up there and the sub-heading down here. — JFG ^talk 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough....seeing that the record is being disputed the information should be combined with "Recognition and registration as record-breaker". I know readers who are interested with this hypothesis will have no problem finding it there and it would go with a WP:NPOV as the section provides both angles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I prefer one section for the fraud theory and another for the verification. Make it easy to find. There is going to be no additional sources about her life or age "verification" - everything new is going to go in the new section until (maybe) enough evidence causes us to rewrite the page saying she was not 122. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything new? We aren't a crystal ball the fact remains that this is a hypothesis and nothing more. Keeping it separate causes undue weight to the article as promoting this hypothesis as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The section header and the content clearly state accurately what is the sources say. Those sources are as much fact as the ones that say she lived 122 years. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You KnowledgeKid87 are continuing to edit against consensus. Revert please [26].

Since whatever her name is died years ago she can't do more things to report. Therefore it is almost certain the only new info will be about problems with verification. That is not CRYSTAL it is common sense. Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? We are an encyclopedia here, this isn't a place to soapbox. If it's proven then okay, right now though we must present the information just as we would for any other article that has disputed info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to get some rest now, I will leave this for other editors to weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed tag is misleading. There is nothing disputed about the fact the sources for this section dispute the rest of the article content. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The purpose of section headers is give the reader an overview of what's in the article, and prepare him/her for what's coming next (if reading top to bottom) or where to find something specific (if jumping in). The fraud hypothesis is separate and distinct from everything else in the article, and many readers will come looking for it; it's appropriate for it to have its own little section. (There's no minimum size for a section.) I would omit This scenario would explain the statistically unlikely difference of several years between Calment's claimed age and the next dozens of oldest persons ever recorded – readers not mentally defective will understand the implications of the hypothesis. The {{undue section}} banner is absurd, but if you want to draw additional attention to what should be a minor part of the article, it certainly does that job well. EEng 04:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted wording was my attempt to summarize the statistical portion of the one source. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but (not your fault) it doesn't do a very good job of it, and I don't think a good job can be done in one sentence, because one sentence can only state the obvious, and the reader doesn't need the obvious i.e. that the hypothesis quite neatly explains why the oldest person ever was so much older than anyone else, to wit, she wasn't. I really think we should drop the sentence. EEng 05:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source covers two main thrusts - that documentry evidence suggests identity assumption and seperately that a study of math models suggests the claim is statistically extremely unlikely. Somehow we should hit both points. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac is correct here. It's indeed trivial for readers to ascertain that a 99-year-old wouldn't be the oldest person, but it's not obvious that the age gap of several years with other recordholders is a gross statistical anomaly. Because the author of the hypothesis is a professional statistician, I believe it is DUE to mention that this hypothesis explains away the statistical issue. Certainly the sentence can be improved. — JFG ^talk 06:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a back-of-the-envelope calculation (with many potential holes), and a minor part of the paper's argument. But I'm not going to fuss about it. EEng 06:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of leaving the sentence out, partly because it is qualified in the paper partly because random scatter becomes an issue with the sample sizes discussed here. Otherwise, I'd say that the article in its present state properly represents the available sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sample size not Billions of people? Even thousands of people over 110 is a reasonable sample size to look at an outlier like 122. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that we can't really tell whether one person reaching their 122 birthday is "statistically unlikely" as random scatter happens; compare the Ecological fallacy. There is apparently controversy on how to construct a statistic for extreme longevity and whether to extrapolate from it, so I would not accept any statement like "It's statistically extremely unlikely that someone lives to their 122 birthday" without a lot more collaboration in sources, such as a WP:MEDRS compliant meta review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant above about envelopes and holes. EEng 17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

FWIW I'm pretty happy with the article's current revision: 1) the fraud hypothesis is described as a hypothesis and not as a recognized fact; 2) the hypothesis is mentioned in the lede and described in a bit more detail in a named subsection; 3) there are no stupid maintenance templates over the lede or subsection since the status of the hypothesis is clear enough for readers to evaluate for themselves; 4) the total amount of space to the hypothesis in the context of the larger article is about right per wp:weight in my estimation. A slight content improvement could probably be made in the subsection, to explain that Yvonne's husband would have been party to the fraud, but that's a refinement.

I have also found the talkpage info about Van Gogh etc. to be worthwhile discussion towards developing the article. On looking over the talk page it seems to me that Knowledgekid87 is editing tendentiously and I'd ask him/her to tone it down. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has recently been enriched by an intriguing fraud proposal, but unfortunately the article has also been "cleansed" of details which would help the reader to assess the veracity of Jeanne Calment's age claim. In detail:

• I have resurrected Calment's claim that she used an 18mm rifle for hunting. A Wikipedia editor has pointed out that this calibre is highly unlikely to have been used by a small woman due to the recoil.

• I have resurrected the change in time zone in France in 1940 from London time to Berlin time (the invading Germans imposed the German time zone in France, and the French have adhered to German time ever since). In the 1990s interview, Calment was asked when she got up in her youth, and her reply was "when one is young, one gets up at eight o'clock". Sunrise in London and Arles is on average at 6am London time, but at 7am German time. Clearly, getting out of bed two hours after sunrise is out of the question for an 1880s French schoolgirl. So Calment's answer is either mistaken, or she has factored in the 1940 time change without mentioning it. So the fraud hypothesis might fit better here, whereby Yvonne would be familiar with the sleep routine of her 14-year-old son Frederic from 1940 onwards.

• I have resurrected the final remark that Calment requested her doctor to place Yvonne's photo and the {grand}-son's photo on her coffin. It is significant that she did not request her husband's picture to be placed on her coffin. Either Calment did not love her husband, or (fraud hypothesis) he is not her husband.

Although these three details seem to support the fraud hypothesis, please do not get too excited yet. I have read the cited fraud literature and am astonished that the fraud researchers have not accessed the most important source on Calment, that is the medical PhD thesis. They need to complete their homework. I look forward to it. 86.180.157.222 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the footnote about time zone changes: all countries went through various timezone adjustments over 100+ years, so we can not infer any particular information from this data point. Besides, any purported impact of timezone changes in France over Jeanne Calment's life or childhood habits would have to be sourced, and I'm not aware that any RS has discussed such correlation. Fine with the other information you restored (affluent life, hunting rifle, burial details). — JFG ^talk 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with JFG's removal of the timezone minutiae. And I re-removed the burial details (before the above was posted) as trivia. And now that I read the above, the idea that the selection of photos is some inside wink wink is OR. Anyway, if "Jeanne" was really Yvonne, then her "husband" was really her father, and you could just as well ask why she did not love her father enough to want a photo of him, either. EEng 04:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas you are both missing the point: It is not plausible for a French schoolgirl regularly to get up two hours after sunrise; it is far more plausible for her to get up one hour after sunrise. Mentioning the time (8am) without mentioning the timezone (French vs German) is therefore seriously misleading for the reader. Keep that in mind. I added the time zone two years ago because Calment's lifestyle details were potentially relevant for her longevity - human metabolism and hormone levels change once we detect blue light in the morning. This article is all about Calment's longevity and the long-term factors that might be relevant, such as her waking at 6.45am (German time, i.e. at sunrise) every morning in the care home. (Incidentally, there was no suspicion of fraud in 2016, but the fact that such suspicions now exist make this time zone information even more relevant to the article.) Please do not dig in - think about it for a few days, think of the researchers who may need this information but are unaware of the French time zone changes in 1891 and 1940, and then please calmly revisit the issue. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not plausible for a French schoolgirl regularly to get up two hours after sunrise; it is far more plausible for her to get up one hour after sunrise – That statement belongs in the WP:OR Hall of Fame. EEng 13:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, so I have rephrased rigorously in the new section below.86.180.157.73 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other news...

I find the use of the term "resurrected" in this thread quite distasteful. Why, the downright disrespect! <clutches pearls> EEng 12:05 am, Today (UTC−5)

Why is her time of death important? We never include time of death in articles. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes articles have that. Typically I take it out unless there's some timeline of events for the day (shot at 2, arrived hospital at 3, died at 4) but given that this is (cough, cough) the oldest person ever, I guess precision is appropriate. EEng 05:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New thread. In the USA, there are different time zones, and furthermore, various US states have "daylight savings time", i.e. a one-hour change of clocks during certain months of the year. Therefore it is usual and necessary on Wikipedia to provide time zone information for time-of-day statements. For example, Wikipedia specifies that the World Trade Centre attacks on 11 September 2001 started at 8.46am EDT (Eastern Daylight Savings Time Zone).

When Calment states that she rises at 8am when young (one interview) or at 6.45am when old (a different interview), it is likewise necessary to state the time zone information, because she lived through three different time zones in France (1875-1891 local solar time, 1891-1940 Greenwich Mean Time, 1940-1997 Central European Time).

The time zone information is relevant primarily because the factors connected with her longevity are of outstanding interest in the Wikipedia article (her diet, sleeping cycle, exercise regime, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, and general lifestyle are described extensively in the article). The time zone is also potentially relevant to assess the recent fraud hypothesis outlined above.

For both these reasons, it is a disservice to deprive the Wikipedia reader of the time zone information, and instead mislead the reader with two seemingly contradictory time statements. The time zone footnote must be reinstated. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get why time zone or time she rose matters at all. Different people get up at different times for various reasons. Getting up between 6 and 8 am is not extraordinary and therefore can not be important to her supposed longevity. The timeline of 9/11 is a whole different case because lots of people are interested in organizing the chronology of that eventful day. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medical researchers state that a person's sleep pattern (night owl vs morning lark) is a major determinant of mortality. Take a look at this recent BBC report on recent research.[27]. Also Calment's doctors documented Calment's sleep habits carefully. So if you have no other objection, we can go ahead with the footnote.86.180.157.73 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When a reliable source points out the significance of this to an understanding of Calment's life, then we can add it. Until then it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. EEng 18:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is that a fact on Calment can only be mentioned when a reliable source says it is relevant to understanding Calment's life. No. The article mentions that Calment lived in Arles. But no reliable source has pointed out that living in Arles is relevant to understanding her life. And regarding time zone specification, you would not be making such a fuss on the Wikipedia page which says the World Trade Centre was attacked at 8.36am EDT, would you? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RSs on the WTC attack give the time. Correct me if I'm wrong but no RS on Calment talks about time zone details. EEng 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know of the Calment literature (all in French), I think you are right. The time switches in 1891 and 1940 appear to be such common knowledge in France that no French literature seems to have bothered mentioning it. An English-speaking Wikipedia reader in contrast will not have this basic knowledge, which is why the footnote is required. You often find such explanatory footnotes in translated works. For example, two years ago I took the liberty of translating Calment's height (reported in an English-language newspaper) from feet and inches into centimetres and added that in an explanatory bracket. This would also violate your stipulation, in that the "relevance" of feet vs centimetres to "understanding Calment's life" has not been pointed out in the Calment literature. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our manual of style provides for routine conversion of units of measure. We don't translate times of day into Greenwich time, or sidereal time, or time on Jupiter, except for historical events with significance across multiple times zones; what time Jeanne Calment got out of bed is not an historical event. You really need to stop thinking you're going to out-logic the rest of us; you're outmatched. EEng 20:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be patient with each other. You have a lot of expertise on Wikipedia rules, and I have a lot of expertise on Calment. So we can, and are, teaching each other interesting points, without resorting to unbecoming language. Clearly we need to update the Wikipedia manual of style for cases where there is a mismatch between timescales. I imagine there will already be a Wikipedia guideline for converting the Julian calendar (used in the UK until 1752 and in Russia until 1917) into modern Gregorian calendar dates to avoid confusion between contradictory time notations. A similar rule should now be implemented in cases where a person like Calment lived through three different time notations. Will you be co-operative in this effort, and can you point me towards the manual? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TIME; I feel it's only fair to warn you that I predict your proposal will be met with derision. She also lived through the Third Republic, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic. Should we mention that too? EEng 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of factors in life habits and in genetic background that may have an influence about a person's eventual life span. Singling out the purported effect of time zone changes gives them undue weight. Note that the same time zone changes affected millions of people who lived in France at that time, and similar time zone changes affected billions of people who lived all over the planet when governments adjusted legal time forwards or backwards with wanton abandon… If there was a measurable effect, we would see some extra life expectancy for all French people born in the 1870s. That does not seem to be the case, or if it is, nobody has researched and documented it. This theory is mere speculation by an editor, and must stay out of this article. — JFG ^talk 1:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Briefly, your lifespan proposals are interesting but speculative and I therefore agree that your theory must therefore stay outside the article. Instead, the time zone information should be provided as a neutral fact, like in other Wikipedia articles.86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, our article on the subject says "DST has mixed effects on health." Jonathunder (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, interesting, but not directly relevant to the time zone footnote.86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@IP86: Sorry, we don't go around adding time zone shifts in any random person's biography. We might as well say that the summer of 1912 was pretty damn hot. Please stop beating that particular horse. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG. I appreciate you are tired of this argument and so am I. I am genuinely puzzled why there is so much resistance to a simple clarifying footnote - I think we have all argued ourselves into a corner and cannot get out. So I will not pester you any more. I hope EEng will respond instead. Please just let me explain my perspective: from a medical point of view, we are interested in lifetime events in ageing humans, such as skeletal shrinkage, frailty, and loss of sleep as we age, the latter now being reassessed as a major deleterious aspect of ageing. People like me are therefore greatly interested in snippets of information about this exceptional Madame Calment, namely that she hardly shrank during her lifetime, did not need a cane until 114, and apparently suffered only minor sleep loss over her lifetime (?? this is where the time zone comes in). To you this might all sound uninteresting, but to us it is pretty crucial info. If she turns out to be a fraud (and I have an open mind on this - the Russian research alas has a glaring omission by not consulting the medical PhD thesis), then my interest in these details will diminish. So that is where I stand. Now good night and Happy New Year 2019. 86.180.157.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a few articles on other people notable for longevity and didn't see any mention of changes in civil time, though almost all of them must have lived through that. Apparently there just aren't sources that find that relevant. Show us some and we might have something to discuss. Jonathunder (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to. Why would a time zone change affect longevity? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, you're the one saying it's relevant. EEng 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one who finds this conversation confusing. All I'm saying is that we would need sources as to how it's even relevant. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thou speakest in riddles. I am talking about my footnote, converting (old) GMT time to (new) CET time for the benefit of non-French Wikipedia users, just like you might convert miles to kilometres for the benefit of non-English Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.157.73 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page now quotes her biographer as saying an identity assuming daughter would have to have been passed off as the wife of her father. Does that timeline make sense? I understood the surviving woman lived with the husband of Yvonne/father of Yvonne's son. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes some sense. If, according to the fraud theory, Jeanne died in 1934, then Jeanne's husband Fernand would have to pretend until his death in 1942 that his daughter Yvonne is his wife. You can read this in the Wikipedia article details. I disagree however that this is a fatal criticism to the fraud theory because Fernard would never need to tell his family and acquaintances that he is passing off his daughter as his wife to the French authorities. I can well imagine it is easy to keep up this paperwork pretence for 8 years. But back to the real issue: fix the timezone footnote please. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "real issue" is the timezone in a footnote? Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernard would have a big incentive to participate in an identity swap, saving his only child a large tax bill. Both women were housewives so there was no need to swap them at work (a dead woman could not keep earning money and paying income tax). Neighbours would know Fernard's wife died (she is not around now) and no one would check the paperwork that said the daughter died instead. Meanwhile the daughter was still living with her husband raising their son and neighbors would not know she was dead on paper. Move out of town for a while (documentented) and make new friends using a new name and the switch is complete. Even today people assume new identities all the time for witness protection, fraud or personal reasons. A person could even say "I changed my preferred name to honor my mom" to their friends/acquaintances. I have a friend that did not like his given name he used growing up. He made a change as an adult and is now universally known by a completely different given name. No big deal. Legacypac (talk)

We are straying into WP:NOT#FORUM territory, but I'd like to leave you a note of thanks for this breakdown on how Fernand could easily be complicit while not even hiding Jeanne's death from his acquaintances. A few years later, World War II blurred everything, and I can easily see Jeanne re-emerging after the war, with Yvonne's death blamed on a war-related illness. Fernand's store was also closed down in 1937, so who would be left to know Jeanne from Yvonne? "Jeanne" could easily tell tales of losing her poor daughter and beloved husband, and lovingly raising her grandson away from the crowds. — JFG ^talk 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the expert now quoted as dismissing the switch theory wrote a book on Calment. So they are pretty heavily invested in dismissing the theory that, if true, makes a major effort on their part look like pretty sloppy research. There was nothing remarkable about Calment except her reported age so if she died at 99, no reason to write a book about her. The author would have to admit they were fooled to accept the possibility of a swap. Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing with me. It will be interesting to see the Russian research when it is completed. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since most experts on the matter will have written something about it your argument amounts to dismissing anyone who has studied it in depth which is unhelpful.©Geni (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this discussion shows the possible unreliableness of the bio author who dismisses a good theory on a strawman argument about the father/husband having to justify calling his daughter his wife. Their call to logic falls pretty flat under a little bit of analysis while the living arrangements documented by the Russian researcher support his theory of a switch. Currently the attack on the switch theory takes up more space than the switch theory, which seems like undue weight when we can poke easily holes in the central argument against the switch. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Yvonne/Jeanne substitution is a fascinating possibility, but there is another: have you checked the Russians' photo gallery? Personally I think the middle-aged lady looks neither like the younger Jeanne Calment not like her daughter Yvonne. Compare young Yvonne's droopy eyelids with the alert eyes of the middle-aged Calment... I urge you to engage in research on this subject, you are clearly interested. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This story suddenly gathered interest from French media since yesterday. Some excerpts:

• Overview of hypothesis + reactions of various medical and demography experts in Le Matin (Switzerland) [28]
• Defense of her age validation by Jean-Marie Robine in Le Parisien [29] (now properly cited in our article)
  • Followup: did the French state look the other way? [30] (a former tax inspector speaks out!)
  • Followup: should the bodies be exhumed? [31]
• Overview of the controversy by CNews [32]
• Robine interviewed on Europe 1 [33] (holds on to the "gold standard" Calment validation, which he helped establish)

Interesting tidbits emerging from these reports:

• Robine explains (Europe 1) that he only met Calment in 1993 when she was already 117, and started validating her case at that time. He states that he met her 30 times and recorded all interviews. He argues that 19th-century longevity validators had identified all common traps, and advocated asking the subject pointed questions about facts that she only could know. Robine accordingly relied heavily on oral testimony by Jeanne, but he could not interview other people who knew her well, because they were all dead! — JFG ^talk 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• A former tax inspector from the Finance Ministry states that he looked at Calment's file which stood out as a statistical anomaly, as the insurance company had contacted the tax authorities to "cover their ass". No followup from either side.
• Several of the experts contacted by the media actually welcome the renewed scrutiny on Calment's case, and praise the quality of the research published by Zak and Novoselov.

Nice way to start 2019! — JFG ^talk 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks, JFG! On this basis, I suggest the fraud hypothesis be reinstated in the lead. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last I looked, it's still briefly mentioned in the lead; no need to change anything there. — JFG ^talk 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope we aren't creating news here rather than documenting it. This was an obscure study done which has all of a sudden exploded in French media, the initial Russian source cites Wikipedia for the mislabeled picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read about this story in French newspapers, and it would seem to me that there are now serious doubts regarding her age and identity. We therefore shouldn't treat her own claims as facts, only claims. For instance we should remove the category 1875 births from the article on the individual who died in 1997. --Tataral (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until these doubts are proven the status should stay per WP:TRUTH. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts are not "proven" which is partly why verifiability, not truth is a policy. We report what the sources say. Right now they are in flux on this subject. Jonathunder (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Here the burden of proof is placed on those editors who want to include material, not the other way round. In this case, this means stating her long life span as an objective and undisputed fact, as opposed to treating the claims in a more nuanced manner. It seems that current reliable sources now generally agree that there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt. This level of doubt now reflected in reliable sources calls for treating her WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in a nuanced manner that includes different views. We will, of course, continue to include the fact that she claimed to have a long life span and that her claims were widely recognised until 2018, while at the same time including the criticism of those claims. --Tataral (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Gerontologists have pointed out that, of the gaps between the ages of oldest persons ever recorded, the gap between Calment and the next oldest is much larger than the others".

I think the gap between the supposed age of Calment 122 years and and the age of 119 years' old Sarah Knause the second oldest person of all time is quite comparable to the gap between Knause and the half dozen of so people who lived to 117. However old Calment actually was, there is no argument that two decades ago the woman believed to be the oldest and Knause the second oldest in human history (at least) died within a couple of years of each other, which is a doubly remarkable lack of a gap.

What did raise the suspicion of imposture was how strong and mentally intact Calment was for a supercentarian, something about that that should replace the gap stuff. Overagainst (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if we do assume that somebody would reach such a high age, it is obvious that person should have been physically fit and active well into their 110's, just like Calment was. Poor physical condition 'stacks the deck' against one's prolonged survival. If a person is wheelchair-bound cripple at 110, he or she is not going to survive another 10+ years. So an aging progression like Calment's is to be expected from anyone who is likely to reach that age. Being 'unusual' or 'unique' is not, as such, argument for impossibility. As for the statistical unlikelihood, I do not think that should be given much weight in the article itself, or assessing the possible fraud. Real life does not always follow statistician's whims, especially in a subject which is not completely understood. Some of the best statisticians in the world calculated that it would be impossible for Long Term Capital to go bankrupt as it would require an event which would plausibly occur once over the age of Universe. Yet such an 'anomalous' event took place within few years and the company went bankrupt.--Mikoyan21 (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If an event which statisticians say would plausibly occur once over the age of Universe is claimed to have happened happened twice in the same week, then calling only one of those a hoax seems wrongheaded. If Calment was an impostor, then (despite better hospitals) the oldest French person ever was Marie Brémont (died 2001 aged 115. Sarah Knause's freakishly extreme longevity being in Jeanne Calment's generation makes the statistical argument against Calment being genuine significantly weaker in my opinion. Overagainst (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just too painful. Would people who know nothing about statistics please stop speculating about statistics? And while we're at it, the people who know a lot about statistics shouldn't speculate either. We don't need all this WP:OR. EEng 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Gerontologists have pointed out that, of the gaps between the ages of oldest persons ever recorded, the gap between Calment and the next oldest is much larger than the others". We are discussing the aforementioned text in the article, and whether the gaps it refers to are noteworthy enough to be mentioned. The 119 year old Knause also has a gap because no one has died at 118, and Calment and Knause died within a few years of each other. I happen to think these facts cast doubt on the extent to which Calment can be considered an outlier. Knause is closest to Calment and relevant to text suggesting that Calment is unlike other super centanarians. If the text were to mention that researchers found it significant that Calment ate insanely huge quantities of chocolate (which happens to be true) it is relevant to ask if they relate that to Knause (who it happens also ate chocolate all the time). Overagainst (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's "Knauss". Secondly... I'm really not sure where you're going here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads "Demographers have highlighted that Calment having lived multiple years longer than the next oldest people ever documented would make her a disproportionately extreme outlier". That is stupid, the link show the other people are all different ages at death. It should be "the next oldest person".Overagainst (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the lede contain very little in total, and things of not much great interest at all. The scoffing at her claiming to have met Vincent van Gogh does not really belong there. The lede should have things people are interested in like her lifestyle and habits and mention how she was uniquely strong and mentally intact for a supercentenarian, being able to stand unaided and make witty remarks. I see nothing wrong with her sucessor, especially are the current lede is pitifully short.Overagainst (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a particular person, not the weird listkeeping of "reigns" and "successors". We have lists of old people for that stuff. EEng 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this article is about Calment, not other old people. The claimed chance encounter with VvG may not belong in the lede, but perhaps her appearance in the film "Vincent and Me" and in other media is worth mentioning there. Jonathunder (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the media appearances might be worth a sentence. But I have a suggestion: for an article that's in flux to any degree, the thing to do is forget all about the lead until the very end. The best time to judge what goes in the lead is when editors have the maximum experience with the overall content. EEng 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there is an obsession operating on this lede but not for long lists it was the weird but very common one of drive by lede chopping. It has the signs of being repeatedly chopped down to the point of ridiculousness in relation to the article. This is about her because of her notability and should concentrate on those aspects and a link to an individual who was not "Other old people" but the oldest person on the planet would be fine in the lede, as they were notable for the same reason she was. Of course almost anything looks odd in the lede after the lede choppers have finished with it' OT Article says she and her husband were double second cousins, but it was the grandfathers and grandmothers who were siblings? Overagainst (talk)

What? EEng 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I must have made a mistake. I thought the body of the article was saying said that Jeanne Calment (nee Calment ) and her husband shared grandparents, and that would make them first cousins "On 8 April 1896, at the age of 21, she married her double second cousin, Fernand Nicolas Calment (1868–1942). Their paternal grandfathers were brothers, hence the same surname and their paternal grandmothers were also sisters.[2]". It would have had bearing on the argument that Jeanne had her husband's nose because she was actually his daughter Yvonne. Double first cousins can share a quarter of their genes.

What you are saying about the lead being expanded makes sense, but I think people might expect a little more of a lede than exists. The sucessor is on other oldest living person articles. Overagainst (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be mentioned Russian mathematician Nikolay Zak, who conducted the study, told Reuters that "he does not have "cast-iron proof" that Calment had lied.Feel this is important in controversy about her age.Clearly sourced in WP:RS reported in International media for balance of opinion. Personally felt it should be in lede but if not it should be mentioned in article at least. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is not necessary, because the Zak hypothesis is not presented as proof of anything in the first place, just an alternate explanation of known facts. — JFG ^talk 03:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to point out the elephant in the room here but this article needs a lot of work before it can be a good article again. I would recommend reassessing the article as "C class" until things can be improved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not GA material, I wonder how/when that assessment was made. Perhaps downgrading to C is a bit steep though, I'd recommend a B rating. — JFG ^talk 03:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a B then it is borderline per WP:BCLASS. Of issue are points #3, and possibly #4. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in flux because of new information. It may take time for this to be sorted out so it can be improved to good article status again. Jonathunder (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that and no editor wants to downgrade an article, but doing so will give other editors (new and old) an indication on what needs to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to B class, and I agree it's borderline, but much closer to B than C. Would need a lot of work to get back to GA in my opinion. — JFG ^talk 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it being reliably accurate is the priority. Calment, if genuine, was the oldest person ever when she reached 116, not 120, because a Japanese was wrongly thought to have reached 120. Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why I think this article should be set to "C class". There is the stability to think on, and if the article is factually accurate or not (which is in dispute). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zak's claims are being given undue weight by including them in the header. Even he didn't claim that they were conclusive. Including it in the header just means we also have to include the counter-claims against him there. This is better covered in the body of the article. FOARP (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This is now a hugely significant turn to the whole story and the claim is being taken very seriously. The lede makes it clear that uncertainty remains and that the claim is disputed. You just have to look at the pageview stats since 6th Dec when the story broke to see how much public interest this has generated. Weburbia (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are giving this controversy too much weight, the section is now bigger than her personal life. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The identity substitution hypothesis has gained a lot of traction since it was originally published in November. Top-level RS media all over the world have reported on it, and dozens of experts have been asked to opine. Like it or not, this story has become a key aspect of Jeanne Calment's overall notability, and therefore must be covered in the lead section. — JFG ^talk 03:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with with Weburbia that this is a significant turn with to the whole story and the claim is being taken very seriously. The lede makes it clear that uncertainty remains and that the claim is disputed. Zak's claim and also mention that Zak told Reuters that "he does not have 'cast-iron proof'" that Calment had lied. The validators who originally certified Calment's age rejected Zak's study.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so my main concern is that the "Scepticism regarding age" section is becoming so large that it is dwarfing Calment's "personal life" section. This is an issue as an active controversy adds undue weight to the article if given too much in depth coverage. So my proposal is as follows:

Create a new article titled "Scepticism on extreme longevity" with opposing sides of view.

We already have other claims of longevity that have been disproven, and those that are disputed, why not create an article to house these theories? I want to make it clear that this differs from longevity myths as those are unproven in all aspects. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism section includes some of her personal life because the two are intertwined for her. At present she is the oldest according to good secondary sources. Well known figures in the field like Michel Poulain have said there is a good case being made for her being a fake. yet the two validators have said they still think she was genuine. "Scepticism regarding age" section is longer but none the worse for balancing the recent attacks on her authenticity with the validators giving their reasons for still thinking she was genuine. That is as encyclopedic as it can be at present I think.

There is no one else like her for being ahead of the pack (except maybe Sarah Knauss whose 119 years there are no doubts about apparently) so an article discussing cases like hers would be short. For many, I would say the majority of Wikipedia bio articles the notable aspect of the subject's life is discussed in far more detail than their personal life, which is usually just birth, marriage, children divorce and bereavement and illness. In the case of living people it would not be possible to discuss theories that they are lying, and Calment was never asked about the idea that she was her daughter, although other scientists suggested the hypothesis to the validators while she was still living. Keeping it encyclopedic would mean the personal life apart from notability is not going to be long anyway. At present the oldest person ever by a long way is said by good secondary sources to be Calment and people come here expecting to read the reasons for thinking that is true, why there are also doubts, and what the validators say in response. All that is under one heading. The following section about her daily routine in the nursing home maybe could be condensed. You don't need to create a new page and such pages often get overlong themselves.Overagainst (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no need to create a fork that would be focused on doubts about Calment's age, however a draft was recently started with the purpose of documenting age validation standards and key cases that have been dismissed after having been thoroughly vetted; there are plenty of examples. Too soon to tell whether Calment will end up among those. Feel free to work on Draft:Verification of supercentenarians. — JFG ^talk 03:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Despite Robine's rebuttal, French media attention is taking off to the point that it looks like we're heading for a weeks-long, or months-long investigation that will lead to new discoveries and countless statements. Many prominent gerontologists, and all the experts of Mrs Calment's biography will voice their opinion. Some are reassessing their data. For instance, Libération covers the story of retired gerontologist Michel Allard, who was part of the authenticating team. He is going to listen to all of his audio tapes of Mrs Calment over again, with the new hypothesis in mind. Of the hypothesis, he says "it's possible".

The article concludes by saying: "it is a conspiracy theory, but it does look like hot stuff, and it's hard not to read Zak and Deigin undisturbed".

If the ongoing re-investigation happens to find that Yvonne took her mother's identity, the forgery will be world news, and it will be worth a Wikipedia article in itself (and for reasons beyond the fact that it's a news, namely that such a forgery is of gerontologists', psychologists' or historians' interest).

Otherwise, if the investigation happens to reinforce the claim of a death at 122, then the article discussing the scepticism may be merged with Jeanne Calment's again. However, the more time passes, the more it looks like such article would stay for good, at least as a "hypothesis".

As for the title, perhaps Jeanne Calment longevity claim skepticism?

XrRex (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any new article would not be a reason for removing content from the Calment article so that there was no duplication, and it never works like that in practice anyway because things are added back and it just ends with two long and fragmented articles instead on one coherent one. People come to this article from a search for Calment and have a reasonable expectation of finding the skepticism section. There are very few articles about which there is no controversy, and it has never been a principle that controversy cannot be covered in a balanced way. I do not think there is going to be any new information worth adding unless there are three exhumations in France which seems very unlikely. The facts were always known and as quoted in the article a British gerontologist in a book pretty clearly made the argument that the woman calling herself Jeanne Calment could be her daughter Yvonne, and this was in print almost two decades ago. The French validators never asked her about that, despite the fact that they mention in their verification article during the 1950s Jeanne Calment was living with Yvonne's husband and listed in the census as the mother of Yvonne's son who lived next door. Calment's deal deal with her own safekeeper of documents, the Arles Notary public, Andre-Francois Raffray, shows no-one could have suspected from examination of her documentation at that point, and there were no rumours in Arles despite her looking 25 years younger than her age, because Raffray would never have done the deal if he had the slightest suspicion he could be dealing with a woman decades younger. The deal may have been a big part of why the validators thought she was genuine. There is no mountain of evidence to be uncovered or official investigation at all because the validation was organised by a non-profit entity funded by a French pharmaceutical company. The two gerontologist who did the verification have nothing to add, and there there will be nothing to add to the article except perhaps a better lede.Overagainst (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot predict whether new information will emerge. I for one would like to hear the tapes from Allard and Robine. In some public interviews, Calment is quoted as having met Van Gogh in her father's store (her father had no store: her husband did, and he was Yvonne's father), in others as being introduced to him by her husband (which is impossible because Van Gogh died when Calment was still a schoolgirl), and yet in others as having heard of his alcoholism and womanizing (again, how would a blushing 19th-century schoolgirl know?) Besides, Robine and Allard have written that they "know the origin" of the "lack of publicity" surrounding Calment's 100th birthday in 1975, whereas documented traces of a 100th birthday are a key criterion in validating supercentenarians (over 110). Tapes of the validation interviews surely have lots of evidence that could come to light and sway the story one way or the other. — JFG ^talk 07:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Poulain thinks a very good case has been made that the the theory (which I expect was well known about before Tom Kirkwood floated it in a 2001 book) of Yvonne having lived to 99 while pretending to be her mother since 1934, is correct. So a very eminent Belgian demographer is now added to the Russian and British gerontologists. Nicolas Brouard, research director at France's National Demographics studies Institute (INED) said that some French research community are "in favour of exhuming the bodies of Jeanne and Yvonne Calment" (though I think they actually will have to exhume more Calments than that to discover the truth).

A "Skepticism about extreme longevity" article means what, if not Calment, the only case with a current reasonable level of acceptance of in which someone apparently lived multiple years beyond anyone else for there to be skepticism about? The new article would just be a fragmented 90% duplication of the one about Calment, who only some French gerontologists were ever total believers in. Nicolas Brouard says the odds of living to 120 are 60 billion to one. They always knew that. Allard also says several scientists pointed out during the validation process that in the only photograph of Yvonne and her mother together the woman who is supposed to be Jeanne is clearly a younger version of the woman who they were investigating, but she looks much younger than the woman who is supposed to be her daughter Yvonne. The picture was even reproduced captioned "Daughter or mother?" by Allard and his colleague.

"We cannot predict whether new information will emerge". Well why create a new article based on an assumption that there will be endless things that have to be added? As I said the essential facts were already well known, and soon there is going to be a balance of opinion as an outcome. We don't have to cover every rejoinder as if they are all encyclopedic. Overagainst (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we are in agreement. Yes, several gerontologists from diverse backgrounds take the hypothesis seriously, and even among the French historical validators who interviewed Calment, one of them concedes the possibility, while the other one denies it all as "unthinkable". Surely more solid news will emerge after the initial shock is digested. — JFG ^talk 12:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Split she's only notable for longevity, a controversy about her longevity should remain here. There's no situation where the article will get so long to require a split. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or, an Yvonne Calment article . . .

If you do not plan to create a specific article for the fraud hypothesis, what will be done if (once) the fraud hypothesis becomes official? Will you create an article for Yvonne Calment (at present a redirect), and move the biography of Old Jeanne on it, as part of an "imposture" section? XrRex (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was widely reported but never "official" that she had lived to 122 in any sense apart from the Guinness book of records having accepted it, them and those two French gerontologists working for a pharma funded non-profit. Demographers knew the odds against anyone living to that age was at least a hundred billion to one. The very fact that she was able to answer verification questions and stand up when she was supposed to be 120 made her highly suspect everywhere, but France. If it was not virtually certain that she was a fraud before it is now, but that will never be official. "Widely reported" at most. Overagainst (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how things evolve, there would be no need to have a different article for Yvonne Calment. Her notability comes solely from Jeanne Calment's, and that will remain true even they are the same person. This was discussed earlier, see #Given the recent piece of info... — JFG ^talk 14:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They were always two different people because it is not in question that there was a real Jeanne and real Yvonne. The date of death of Jeanne is unknown and probably always will be.Overagainst (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Overagainst: There was a bit of an edit conflict as we both updated a significant portion of the article at the same time. Please look at my version and tell me what you think should yet be improved based on your ideas. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 12:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main body of the article has more or less sufficient references, and there should be a paring down of extraneous detain and repetition of the arguments and theories. I also think that it is best to avoid saying that Calment family members may have been in on a deception. For the lede, Something along the lines of her having attained the unprecedented age of 122 having become generally accepted after two French gerontologists pronounced her verified as the oldest person ever, but it being increasingly questioned in the scientific community whether she was that age or even who she claimed to be. It's a lost cause with topical articles, but I like ledes that are a little intriguing to make you read on and not ones that give the details of opposing viewpoints. Driveby editors who want to give undue weight to specific viewpoints will want to add add refs to ledes so the lede gets flipped back and forth multiple times a day, but lede refs are not supposed to be there according to the style guide. I think i'll leave the article page alone, and let others edit now.Overagainst (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per some good advice from EEng in a section above, let's focus on the body for now and once it's stable we can rewrite the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not going to be anything new discovered but in my experience that rarely means an article becomes stable. I expect the lede will get tit for tat drivebys with a ref forever after.Overagainst (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article is about someone from France. In general, we have to use a particular English variant for an article related specifically to something from a particular English-speaking country. We have to use British English for articles specifically related to the United Kingdom. But France is not an English-speaking country, and there's no way such a rule can apply. What flaw is there here?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It usually depends on who initially types up the article. I have seen American topics written in British English as well as United Kingdom related things typed up in American. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{User British English}} note because I noticed back-and-forth editing of "Skepticism" vs "Scepticism". I don't mind personally in which English variant this article is written in, but we must stick with one. — JFG ^talk 17:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

France is part of the European Union. One of the official languages of the European Union is English as used in the UK. Most, if not all, European countries also officially teach the British variant of English in schools and so on. Topics relating to European countries should therefore always use British English. We don't use American English in Europe. --Tataral (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne Calment

• Jeanne Calment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pending Changes Protection: Recent Conflict over age of Jeanne Calment. AceTankCommander (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello All. The WaPo has a long story detailing what it calls a Russian Conspiracy Theory, and notes that it has seeped into the Wikipedia article.[34] It is troubling that WP:NPOV seems so vulnerable to such a concerted conspiracy, which seems to have woven itself into the article pretty substantially (including in the lede). If NPOV asks us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." it seems like the weight given to *ONE* self-published article that was rejected twice by peer review is definitely WP:UNDUE. And when you frame it inside the overall conspiracy, it is even more asymmetrical. --Theredproject (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As coverage is dependant on the extent of secondary sources, the peer review issue is worth mentioning, but should not be considered in deciding where this issue has been given undue weight. The Washington Post article is not conclusive as to whether the claims of fraud and deception around Calment's age are part of a Russian disinformation campaign. More sources on this aspect are necessary before this can be raised as an issue in the article. Philip Cross (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, it might be worth adding to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2019. Philip Cross (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip Cross: you are missing the point. Wikipedia is being played here. One self-published (therefore not WP:RS!!) is being used to upend an entire article. I want to repeat: the Zak article is not a Reliable Source because it is self published. --Theredproject (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people are living so the accusation there was a fraud can be reported as having been made. A World authority Belgian demographer and a top man at the French government Demography institute are on public record as saying Zack has made a good case and there are news sources for that. An eminent gerontologist had floated the very same ID fraud accusation in a book published almost two decades ago.Kirkwood p41 said Calment's word and the lack of financial motive in 1934 was the only evidence against ID fraud. Whether the balance of opinion among people in the field was ever sufficient to have her article baldly state 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997 is questionable. It certainly is not now. Stating 21 February 1875 – 4 August 1997 without qualification is quite unjustified.Overagainst (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there were several sources advancing the Russian conspiracy theory (yes, that's what it is, but that doesn't automatically make it false!): the Milova interview, the Deigin Medium posts, and then the Zak preprint. Self-published work is not disqualified from being sourced on Wikipedia. Peer review is no guarantee of truth either: just think of how many bogus studies were published in respectable journals. Remember Andrew Wakefield? In any case this is all moot now as there are dozens of secondary sources discussing the potential conspiracy, and we should reflect this.Chicagobeers (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The heading of the article says that the new theory of November 2018 has been criticized by some. However, it doesn't give any reason. I would like to know if anyone can add a reason, to make it clear that the people who are criticizing it are not simply taking for granted the idea that the theory was made up just to think outside the box. Georgia guy (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: take a look at the WaPo article for a list of people who are criticizing it, and their reasons.[35] --Theredproject (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is by no means a new theory, and is in fact given in a 2001 book By Tom Kirkwood. Jeanne Calment's date of death as given in the article is unverifiable and probably wrong, as is her daughter's. Overagainst (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, her death was verified by dozens of sources at the time. Since this theory is unproven the death date stands for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is proven that she could have died in 1934 and the documented existence of Jeanne Calment since then (which Kirkwood said in his book in 2001 Allard and Robine relied on) was simply the result of a series of false declarations by other people since that date. Tom Kirkwood in his book Time of Our Lives: The Science of Human Aging (1999) rather obviously conveyed that her supposed age was so great that it raised serious doubts despite the verification by two French doctors, and he is a world authority expert on aging and it was not a self published book. Tom Kirkwood pointed out with sardonic understatement in his book when discussing the possibility that Calment could be a fraud that the crucial thing weighing against the idea was "it would have been a cunning trick" because the deal with the lawyer was decades later and the fame later still when she was was in a nursing home. So, we have an excellent source that the that the key objection to Calment being a fraud was that, if she was a fraud, she was merely keeping up a deception that started in 1934, and thus and could have absolutely no connection to her benefiting from her longevity. There was means, opportunity, but no motive.

Who originally liquidated the objection of there being no motive by pointing out that death duties would have been due on the death of Jeanne in 1934 is now beside the point. There were such duties in 1934 and there are now excellent sources for this being true from French news reporting this month. So there is a known, undisputed and proven motive in the 1934 tax laws of France for a deception such as Calment is being accused of. It should be made clear in the lede (which is all that many people read) that while one person living in Arles as "Jeanne Calment" for 122 years was verified by a process relying on documents two decades ago, it having being revealed there was a motive for the deliberate document falsification that has long been suspected makes her authenticity far more doubtful of late in the eyes of the scientific community. Currently, even Robine and Allard--the original validators of the 122 years' old claim--are acknowledging Calment merits further investigation. No tags?.Overagainst (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points from @Overagainst: all around! Chicagobeers (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scepticism and theory that she died in 1934 since when she had been impersonated by Yvonne were one and the same since Kirkwood's 1999 book. The only new information is that there was was a tax evasion motive in 1934 and that is established fact according to French news sources. Can we get away from this back and forth about Zak, he is not the source for anything. Yvonne's mistakenly captioned photo was on some American website last year had no influence on anything so why is it being gone into in this huge caption on the article?Overagainst (talk)

The conflict on this article has spilled over to the one on Sarah Knauss with edits naming her "the oldest indisputably verified supercentenarian ever." Jonathunder (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's editorializing OR, and should be reverted. — JFG ^talk 04:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reviewers, quoted in the media, says only an exhumation will resolve the question. This seem an eminently sensible summary of where we are - why not quote this in the article? cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 04:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discussion of the current controversy: [36]. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]