Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Good articleJeanne Calment has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 16, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Template:Vital article

Jeanne vs Yvonne

(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]

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]

Given the recent piece of info...

...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]

References

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

Rewrite that Jeanne was not the oldest person ever?

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.

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]

Picture of Yvonne

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]

Fashion interlude

Charwoman?
Charwoman

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

[10] 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]

Searching for the picture of Jeanne and Yvonne Calment together in 1925

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 [11]. 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]

Fringe Theory

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 [12]
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. [13] 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 [14] without knowing what's going on. I received thanks from all three other editors involved [15] [16] [17] and everyone's perfectly happy -- see [18]. 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 [19] 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.

Better video re van Gogh

Can someone who understands that language spoken by French people in France tell us if this [20] 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 [21]; 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]

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!

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]

"Fraud hypothesis" sub-heading

Knowledgekid87 please stop these kinds of edits [22]. 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? [23] - 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 [24].

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]

Reverting certain deletions which are relevant to fraud discussion

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. 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]

Time of death

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]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeanne_Calment&oldid=876122185

Leave a Reply