Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Yuri Deigin’s role in the Russian conspiracy theory

Yuri Deigin recently published a Medium entry in which he claims that it was his Medium posts on the Calment affair that brought media attention to the Russian conspiracy theory:

https://medium.com/@yurideigin/jeanne-and-me-7d0f04314acb

That seems to check out as Google News search for “Deigin Calment” after December 30, 2018 yields many links.

Deigin also claims that he provided original evidence not found in Zak: photo analysis and the like. I reread Deigin’s posts and Zak’s ResearchGate paper, and Deigin’s claims seem to be valid. He also published his first Medium entry before Zak as the latter refers to it in his RG paper. Should we reflect this? Currently we have no mention of Deigin in the article. Chicagobeers (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Deigin's postings were rejected as self-published sources, but it's true that many RS cited him. Not sure how he should reflect that fact, or whether we even should. — JFG ^talk 08:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Zak's RG source is also self-published as are all sources of the Russian theory. If that doesn't stop us from reporting this hypothesis shouldn't we also reflect the role of the author who drew attention to it in the first place? We don't have to cite him directly, we can cite media sources instead. Chicagobeers (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to make an edit along these lines. Keep it short, though. — JFG ^talk 11:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Since I already posted a long description up above of why citing the Zak study is inappropriate on Wikipedia, I'll just say the Deigin study violates all these same rules. Sourcing media sources reporting on it does not somehow transform the Deigin study into something it's not. Just because a bunch of newspapers are briefly reported on a supposed controversy does not make it notable. Newspaper interest in the story has already taken a precipitous downturn, and seems fairly on its way to be forgotten. 04:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs)

Bigonnet relation

We are told that Calment had no ho heirs left after the death of her grandson, yet later on we are told that a "Mrs. Bigonnet" was her heir, so there's one problem. This woman is described as the cousin of Calment's grandson and a "distant family member". Surely in order to be Calment's heir she had to be related by blood to Jeanne Calment herself, not only to Frédéric Billot. Can we be more specific about this? Surtsicna (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks clear to me she was no heir. Notwithstanding Mr. Zak's assertion, French law does not make cousins heirs, much less distant ones. I wish Davidcpearce came here to discuss instead of edit-warring. — JFG ^talk 14:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davidcpearce: You wrote in your latest edit summary: "La famille était représentée par Josette Bigonnet et son époux, huissier de justice et exécuteur testamentaire de Jeanne Calment. Il y a donc bien eu des instructions testamentaires." (LES GRANDS CENTENAIRES FRANÇAIS)"[1] Could you please cite the book then? Besides, an "exécuteur testamentaire" is not a heir; does the book state that the Bigonnet family were designated as heirs in Calment's testament? — JFG ^talk 21:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

In French law (now and most likely in 1997) a person dying without descendance and leaving a will (testament) can choose somebody as a heir (maybe inheritance taxes are higher than in the case with children, I'm not sure). In the absence of a will (apparently not applicable here, since there seemingly was a will), there is a certain hierarchy for priority, including cousins at some point (see this Ooreka link (French)). As regards the quotation, it seems to be extracted not from a book, but from an article in "L'Orient Le Jour", 17 Feb 1997.--Alpha carinae (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha carinae: Thanks for those details. Indeed, when you have no "reservatory heirs" (not sure of the English translation of this concept), you can designate pretty much anyone, and whatever remains of your estate is taxed at 60%. If you have access to the "L'Orient Le Jour" story, could you kindly quote any relevant passages from there? I'm willing to translate if you just post in French. — JFG ^talk 19:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: No, I just accessed the forum from which the sentence was extracted (link); this is a post by "Arno" who I understand to be the administrator of that site. However I've been confused because Calment died on August 1997, while February 1997 was her 122nd birthday and this article, if true, can only have been written after her death and probably soon after. Search on the journal's site doesn't point to this article, so I don't know what the source of this article is.

Jeanne Calment est décédée le 4 août 1997. Elle n’avait plus aucun descendant direct depuis bien longtemps. Lignée totalement éteinte.

Nous savons qu’elle avait rédigé des instructions successorales puisque son exécuteur testamentaire est connu et se trouvait présent avec son épouse aux obsèques de Jeanne Calment.

Jean Bigonnet était un ancien huissier de justice à la retraite depuis 1991. Il a épousé Josette Flauder, cousine germaine de Frédéric Billot. Je suis fort étonné que cette Josette très présente auprès de Jeanne Calment pendant ses dernières années de résidence à la maison du Lac ait été présentée comme la plus proche parente survivante de la doyenne de l’Humanité…

Ils étaient apparemment les uniques représentants de la famille de la défunte ce 6 août 1997. M. Bigonnet veillait-il déjà à la mise en oeuvre d’instructions concernant les obsèques de Jeanne qui auraient figuré dans son testament ? Nul ne le sait mais nous pouvons en douter compte tenu du protocole qui ne ressemblait pas du tout à la personnalité de Jeanne Calment.

Bien qu’ayant conservé ses facultés intellectuelles jusqu’au terme de son existence, la doyenne absolue a été placée sous tutelle le 9 janvier 1997. Les justifications de cette mesure avancées par l’expert mandaté par le tribunal d’instance d’Arles furent celles-ci :

“Mme Calment n’est plus apte à assumer les actes élémentaires de la vie civile ; elle a besoin d’être conseillée, soutenue et protégée dans les traces que peuvent lui valoir sa célébrité”

Let me however quote an article which really was published in that Lebanese journal on 18 Feb. 1997:

Selon Josette Bigonnet, dernière parente éloignée de Jeanne Calment, née le 21 février 1875 dans une famille aisée, «elle va très bien, elle est toujours aussi coquette, mais ce qui est le plus incroyable, c’est son esprit». (...) «Elle continue à vivre. Ma foi, je ne sais pas jusqu’à quand», constate avec résignation Josette Bigonnet, manifestement désorientée par cette parente immortelle.

--Alpha carinae (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Alpha carinae, can you translate all that into English?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

At this point I'm inclined to think this is just some text written by this user Arno and not a quotation of anything published. Anyway it might refer to documented stuff. Let me roughly translate (a) the quotation from the 122th birthday in the L'Orient Le Jour, and (b) the beginning of the first quotation. Sorry for my English.

(a) According to Josette Bigonnet, the last remote relative of Jeanne Calment […] "She goes on living; actually I don't know until when", Josette Bigonnet observes resignedly, obviously puzzled by this immortal relative. (L'Orient Le Jour 18 Feb. 1997)

(b) Jeanne Calment died on August 4th 1997. Since a long time ago, she had no living descendant; her lineage was totally extinct. We know she wrote directives about her succession, since the executor of her will is known and attended Jeanne Calment's burial with his spouse. Jean Bigonnet was a former court bailiff, retired since 1991. He married Josette Flauder, first cousin of Frédéric Billot [Jeanne's grandson who died in 1963]. I'm quite surprised that this Josette, who was often with Jeanne Calment in the last few years at the Maison du Lac, was referred to as the closest living relative of the world's elder. They were, it seems, the only representatives of the deceased's family on this 6 August 1997. Was Mr. Bigonnet already taking care of any directives about Jeanne's burial that would have been included in her will? Nobody knows, but we may doubt it, given the protocol that did not at all match Jeanne Calment's personality. Although she kept her intellectual capabilities until the end of her life, the absolute elder was placed under legal guardianship on 9 January 1997. This step was justified by an expert mandated by the Arles tribunal thus: "Mrs. Calment is no longer fit to conduct elementary acts of civil life; she needs to be counseled, supported and protected about the potential consequences of her celebrity." (User Arno in Les Grands Centenaires site)

--Alpha carinae (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have improved and completed the translation above.Not much to gather from there. Interesting contradiction between the legend that she was "mentally fit until the end" and the administrative placement under guardianship. — JFG ^talk 11:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In any case, there is no information about Josette Bigonnet being a designated heiress of Calment. We can safely leave this out of the article. — JFG ^talk 11:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, although Josette Bigonnet née Flauder was referred as the closest relative of Jeanne Calment, there was also Jeanne Calment's grandson's widow, who's actually still alive with Parkinson's disease according to Paris Match's alleged "counter-investigation". I don't know if she was legally Jeanne Calment's heiress; this might depend on her prenuptial agreement with Frédéric Billot.

Side note: this article mentions an interview with a living relative of Jeanne Calment, Gilberte Mery, granddaughter of Jeanne Calment's first cousin, claimed to be 89 years old in Journal du Dimanche and 98 years old in Paris Match. Duplicity of age...--Alpha carinae (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Having Zak's claims in the header is undue

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The undue-inline tag in the header is not warranted and should be removed. Regardless of what you think of the sceptical argument, it has been made by a number of people (not just Zak) over a long period of time and has received wide coverage. The article has a major section addressing the sceptical argument and so it is appropriate that it is also referenced in the header. Besides, there is already an undue-weight template in that section (which I am not at this time proposing be removed). Oska (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I think it is time to seriously consider labeling Zak's study as pseudoscience. First, the French Wikipedia article on Jeanne Calment labels this whole controversy as pseudoscience. I realize that we do not base our editing on other Wikipedias, but there are many more reliable sources in French, which have pretty much debunked Zak's "research". Second, reliable sources (French and English) have established that Zak could not get his paper published in a scientific journal precisely because it is pseudoscience. Third, reliable sources have reported that the consensus among gerontologists [2] is that Zak's study was not scientifically sound. While DNA testing may be the only way to establish with near certainty the identity of Jeanne Calment, reading French sources reveals that this is not going to happen without scientific evidence and since Zak's study has been rejected by the relevant scientific community as scientifically unsound, DNA testing ain't gonna happen.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

“C'est un très bon travail” (Nicolas Brouard, director of research at l'Institut national d'études démographiques)

I fear we’ve been hoodwinked.--Davidcpearce (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The description of the Yvonne theory is not limited to Zak. In fact, several gerontologists mentioned it years earlier, and today the renewed controversy was deemed worthy of further study by a consensus of French, Belgian and Swiss experts at INED (see reporting about the 23 January meeting), some of which had been involved in validating Calment's life story in the 1990s. Speculation on future developments, such as potential DNA tests, won't help improve the article at this time. — JFG ^talk 23:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that a consensus of experts at INED concluded that the controversy was worthy of further research is supported by reliable sources [3]. I think that the consensus reached at INED was that Zak's research was essentially unsound scientifically, but that there still remain questions that could use further scientific investigation. If problems were found after such research, DNA test might be required. But in any case, I believe reliable sources only support the conclusion that there are no scientifically sound reasons (at this point) to doubt Calment's age. I am One of Many (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Referring to the French Wikipedia to have a judgement would be ludicrous. The few users who have a hand on the Jeanne Calment page on the French Wikipedia have a definite appreciation of the case, and have decided to only refer to Robine's reaction (claiming that Zak's work is non-scientific and defamatory) and INSERM's statement (which basically claims that in order to put into question the scientific value of the validation, one should prove its wrongness!). They refuse to make any reference to other reactions such as Allard's, Brouard's, Poulain's. The level of the discussion in the talk page of the French page is crackpotesque, consisting in making a lot of noise, or editors own definite opinion on physical resemblances, etc. There is even an explicit will to hide information:

J'ai même peur que cette théorie farfelue ne se relance un jour tout simplement parce que cette page avec vue 500 - 600 fois par jour en moyenne (hors buzz médiatique). Wikipédia façonne également l'inconscient des gens, en relayant ce genre de truc à l'évidence sans fondement. (...) Cedalyon (discuter) 11 janvier 2019 à 13:17 (CET)

Translation: I'm even afraid that this phoney theory would once pop up again, only because this page is read 500-600 times a day in average (in the absence of media buzz). Wikipedia also shapes the unconscious of the people, by relaying this kind of stuff, obviously unfounded.

Also the French page conveys the propaganda that the usurpation hypothesis is a Russian invention, which, according to published sources, is a false assertion.--Alpha carinae (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion on the French Wikipedia talk page is more sophisticated than on this page. In part because most of the relevant criticism and data are in reliable resources in French. I am One of Many (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be greatly interested in reading any "sophisticated" feedback which you could import from that French talk page (and related to the usurpation issue and/or its media coverage)...--Alpha carinae (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Right. That frwiki talk page is an absolute train wreck. They don't even discuss the myriad French sources written over decades. — JFG ^talk 07:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What they don't do is focus on this fringe, pseudoscientific hypothesis for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence. To my knowledge, we have exactly one article in English that has analyzed the evidence for this hypothesis (the Washing Post article) and it concluded it is a conspiracy theory. We have a number of articles in French that also analyze this hypothesis and conclude that it is scientifically unsound. There are NO reliable sources providing any scientific evidence supporting this hypothesis. Yet here, it is taken seriously and on the French Wikipedia it is treated in accordance with reliable sources.I am One of Many (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody among the experts disputes the science. The controversy revolves around the credit given to historical documents in case of identity substitution, and around the veracity of Calment's self-reporting of her life story to researchers; there's nothing to prove or disprove scientifically in there. The situation is similar to a "cold case" police inquiry. Doubts based on age statistics of the supercentenarian population cannot prove the hypothesis, they can just raise suspicion. Only a DNA analysis could bring science to the table. — JFG ^talk 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Demography is a science, as is historical research. That a field of research doesn't involve test tubes and beakers doesn't mean it's not scientifically rigorous. An important concept to note is that it is very normal for demographic documents to have minor errors/omissions, even for well known historical figures and events. Rather simple measurement errors can lead to radically different heights being recorded, the color of one's eyes can vary upon the light and the survey taker's perception, and there is always the possibility of transcription errors. There is no human being on the planet, I think, who does not have some ambiguity in their demographic records. Zak's study has been criticized for ignoring this fundamental concept of the soft sciences and attacking the record of Calment's longevity like a mathematician attempting to disprove a theorem (perhaps understandable, given Zak's background). And yet while he demands complete and utter consistency from evidence supporting Calment's claim, Zak has no problems placing the "identity theft" theory alongside without critique or criticism, indeed without very much real evidence to support it at all. Zak's makes little attempt to have his theories stand on their own, merely attempt to poke holes in the established history and argue this places his own weak evidence on equal footing.

Which is of course identical to how 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, flat earthers and all other forms of conspiracy theories/fringe science work. We can never 100% prove that Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but when the records of her life are more complete and consistent than almost any other supercentenarian we really have to ask at what point does a self proclaimed quest for historical truth become a self serving attempt to throw down the establishment. And if the Zak theory is just a conspiracy theory (which I will vehemently argue that it is), does that make it worthy of inclusion on wikipedia (I will continue to argue that it doesn't)Voteins (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JFG's comment directly above. So far this is not an issue of science. This is an issue of validation of records and other evidence presented (including testimony) and then the presentation of a theory that fraud was committed and the motives for that fraud. So this is very similar to legal or police work or historical investigations. It is *not* science and people who make high-sounding claims of "Science" and then dismissals of the fraud theory as "pseudoscience" are engaging in scientism i.e. the dressing up of non-scientific matters as science. The only point that science will enter the Jeanne Calment story is if bodies are exhumed and DNA tests are made. Oska (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no issue of science in the controversy. The validation is claimed to be scientific. The point of view of INSERM and of Robine are that they provided a scientific proof and that Zak's inquiry is not scientific, and that only a full "proof" of the usurpation hypotheses can put into question the truth of their conclusions. Considering the Allard-Robine contributions as allegations and a testimony, rather than a scientific proof, would be a great perspicacity fit from the involved community.--Alpha carinae (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pretty clear you don't understand what "fringe, pseudoscientific hypothesis" means. The possibilities advanced in this new research are a hell of a lot more probable and credible than the 122 year old claim based on censuses records. There is nothing more scientific about the "verification" than the questions raised now. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Zak's published article

There's a "published online" version of Zak's article in Rejuvenation Research, currently under paywall. Its name is Evidence that Jeanne Calment died in 1934, not 1997. It has a stable DOI (10.1089/rej.2018.2167).--Alpha carinae (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Already cited.[4] — JFG ^talk 19:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Modifications of the main article are required to better reflect the published article. Some summary of the paper would be useful here, so as to decide what should be reflected on the main page. First, the main claim of the paper is in the abstract:

I present a body of data that, I argue, cumulatively casts serious doubt on the validity of Jeanne Calment's accepted world record of human lifespan. First, I assess the plausibility of the record based on the lifespans of other centenarians in the International Database of Longevity (IDL) and critique some arguments put forward previously in support of this record, including the longevity of Calment’s ancestors. Second, I review the literature dedicated to Calment and discuss multiple contradictions in her interviews, biographies, photos, and documents. I argue that the evidence from these sources motivates renewed consideration of the previously rejected hypothesis that Jeanne's daughter Yvonne acquired her mother's identity after her death in order to avoid paying inheritance tax and that Jeanne Calment's death was reported as Yvonne's death in 1934. Finally I discuss the importance of reconsidering the principles of validation, due to the possibility of similar problems regarding other exceptionally long-lived people and the mistaken inferences that researchers may draw from flawed datasets. The phenomenon of Jeanne Calment may prove to be an instructive example of the uncertainty of seemingly well-established facts.

In particular (in both the published and the preprint versions), there is no claim to prove the usurpation hypothesis, as oversimplified by various sources. This is not what the page says, but the current wording "revived the theory" is quite poor and misleading. A theory seems to entirely prove/explain the usurpation and how it happened, but nobody has such claims.

By the way, there are some differences with the preprint version. For instance, in the preprint version Zak argued that it was unlikely that Calment, whose grown-up height was 152cm, would still heigh 150cm at age 110 (relying on Garoyan's thesis for this latter measure). Allard later produced a medical document with the height of 143cm roughly at the same period or a bit later. This height topic has simply been erased in the published version.

Currently (thanks JFG) the published-online version is quoted, but only the preprint version is discussed. As regards the scientific contents, the published version is a more reliable source. On the other hand, the appearance on the web of the preprint version in December, under another name (Jeanne Calment: the secret of longevity) launched the "buzz", denials, etc. So the preprint version should be quoted whatsoever, as part of the case.--Alpha carinae (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alpha carinae: Do you have access to the published article? It's behind a paywall. We can't assess changes from the preprint just by reading the abstract. — JFG ^talk 07:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: yes I've got the online-published article (I don't call it published because it visibly hasn't been through formatting so far).--Alpha carinae (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey the editor who accepted Zak's paper also wrote an editorial ("Cherish your exceptions, but also your doubts") explaining why he accepted the article [5]. There are basically two reasons. First, to quote Aubrey de Grey referring to Calment's age: "Is it a new hallmark of aging? No. Is it a new way to combat an existing hallmark? No again. In fact it is a challenge to arguably the single most famous “fact” in gerontology (at least when fame is measured among the general public rather than professionals): the world record of human longevity". Thus, as far as the science of aging goes, her age is an unimportant fact. Second, he argues that science must always be open to the possibility of errors in facts and so it is possible that Jeanne Calment is not as old as claimed. He also points out that there are some verified errors that never have been corrected such as such as "Lucy Hannah that do appear [on official lists] even though decisive evidence came to light years ago that they did not live nearly as long as was originally believed."[6]. So, it is important to keep in mind that Zak's paper was not published because of its scientific merit (no where in his editorial does Aubrey de Gray defend any aspect of scientific merit), but rather because it is a single fact not crucial to the science of aging and that scientists should always be open to error.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to the editorial. I think the salient quote from it is this part:

But today’s topic concerns the opposite tendency: having convinced oneself that an ostensibly anomalous data point is valid, to become invested in that belief at the expense of new information that might motivate the opposite conclusion. A saddening number of colleagues, including some from whom I would honestly have expected greater caution, have already been guilty of this error regarding the Calment article, in the aftermath of the pre-publication publicity noted above.

Oska (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Help wanted for references to Garoyan's thesis

A large part of the sections on Jeanne's Calment daily routine at the nursing home, and about her medical history there, are cited to Georges Garoyan's 1990 thesis: Cent-quatorze ans de vie ou la longue histoire de Jeanne Calment, doyenne d'âge de France, published at the Aix-Marseille university. Does an editor have access to this document? We should review the citations, provide exact pages and quotes, and perhaps improve translations. — JFG ^talk 11:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

In other words, you, with the support of EEng, have randomly trashed the article without first reading the single most important source on Jeanne Calment. You have thereby deprived researchers of valuable Wikipedia information (most researchers, whether supporters or critics of Calment, cannot read the French sources). You ask belatedly for help, but why should anyone now trust you and work with you? This once-excellent article is a lost cause. Both of you, take this as a lesson for the future how not to behave on Wikipedia, please. 86.162.86.5 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Separate article for Yvonne Calment created and quickly listed for deletion

Alumnum has removed the redirect on the Yvonne Calment article (which used to redirect here) and created a new page for Yvonne Calment. They have then edited this article to link to the new article (and there was a bit of an edit war over that action). The new Yvonne Calment article has been listed for deletion. Oska (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Was merged back. — JFG ^talk 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne vs Yvonne

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

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)

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

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)

@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,[7] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

In a normal situation, it would be hard for a daughter to take on the identity of her mother without others knowing. But this was not a normal time. This was France during World War II, where no one moved freely about on the streets and the well off, such as the Calments, stayed hidden. By the time the dust cleared, it's possible Jeanne could have exited the situation assuming her mother's identity without too much question. 65.26.202.251 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to re-up this thread so it doesn't get archived. Editors made really good points that should not disappear into this pages archive. It's good food for thought for editors currently engaged in including the Jeanne vs Yvonne dispute or not debate at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Age Controversy

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)

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)

Daughter assuming identity? i don't think its true. the daughter was born in 1898 and the mother in 1875, if the mother had died in 1934, she would have been 59 at the time, and the daughter would have been 36. i dont think a thirty six year old could have passed for a nearly 60 year old person, even if the mother was young looking for her age and the daughter looked older than 34, it still wouldn't have been possible to pass herself off as a nearly 60 year old person. theres no way. i suppose they could always try carbon dating her remains, but i dont know if that kinda thing is that accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4C12:CA00:B935:D460:69C9:221D (talk) 10:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I guess there's no need to open a new section to just add your own analysis, which is not the role of this page. Everybody agrees that this age difference makes this hypothesis quite unlikely, and this has been argued at many places.--Alpha carinae (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC) Moved to this subsection. --Alpha carinae (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Calment's photo aged 60?

Here is a picture of Jeanne Calment in 1935, age 60, AFTER her supposed "death" in 1934

http://worldsoldestpeople.wikia.com/wiki/Jeanne_Calment

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/worldsoldestpeople/images/3/38/Jcv444.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/214?cb=20100507024108

Eat that Rosskis

Please remove UNPROVED alleged Russian debunking. It isn't because the USSR falsified the birth certificates of 10,000 people in Georgia to show purported exceptional in the region where Stalin was from, or cheated several times, notably in Olympics etc that everyone has to be a cheat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcauchy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Nobody knows where this picture comes from, and at what date it was taken. Also, please avoid off-topic opinions on falsifications by Stalin. — JFG ^talk 17:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The photo is on GRG here: [8], if that is her at age 60 after her supposed "death" in 1934 then it should be accounted for. Doing basic math and assuming that GRG is a reliable source the picture would indeed be from 1935. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Spot on. This picture links her to the later years. Just look at the nose in the picture at 60 years old and the one at 112, it is identical. Yvonne's nose was different. Other features too. (Pcauchy (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

I'm not going to go into comparing picture details as its subjective and not really admissible (legally) unless you have a background in forensics. I will say that this once again puts the spotlight on GRG and if they are reliable or not. Should we disregard the fact that they have the caption that says "At age 60" on it? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The title of this subsection and its main point are xenophobic. This has nothing to do in this page, nor on any Wikipedia talk page.--Alpha carinae (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What does GNG stand for, Knowledgekid87?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a typo (Gerontology Research Group), I don't agree with the rhetoric from the OP but a valid point has been brought up in the picture of Calment at 60. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This must support the traditional statement that her 122-year life was real. But is there any flaw in the idea that it proves this?? What false statement does it assume?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The flaw is the reliability of GRG as they were wrong about the picture of "Yvonne" which they had originally labeled as "Jeanne". Do we believe them going forward, and if so how do we present this information? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the title "Please remove Russian troll interference" is not acceptable here and since the discussion concentrates on the given photo, I'm renaming the title, as neutrally as possible.--Alpha carinae (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to make our own arguments (and especially not bigoted ones). In particular for this page, it is not the place to make an argument either for or against Jeanne Calment's longevity claim. Those arguments are relevant to the topic but they should be made elsewhere and only documented here. Oska (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is of course the place to make arguments regarding the article. Where else should they be made if not here. Maybe some of your arguments are not to your liking but that cannot be helped. Rather than trying to invalidate all arguments you should bring your own ones in regard to your opinion.--Maxl (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox fanfluff

I have removed, again, the following longevity fanfluff as inappropriate for the infobox:

1. "Only person verified to live to 120 years or beyond" Apart form the fact that her age is now disputed, and the different interpretations of "verified" there is no breadth of coverage which indicates any apparent uniqueness of being over 120 as a specific notability rather than incidental to her actual age.
2. "First person verified to live to 116 years or beyond" As for the above and also factually incorrect. Being the "first" to an arbitrary age "milestone" is incidental rather than some sort of landmark (to anyone but the longevity fanclub). There was in fact no big deal when she reached her supposed 116th birthday because she was not thought of as being the first, Shigechyo Izumi was.
3. "Last person alive to have recollections of the painter Vincent van Gogh" There is no notability guideline which indicates that being the last person alive to have known a notable person is itself notable.

These are all incidental events none of which on their own would be sufficient to pass WP:N and therefore should not be included in the infobox section "Known for". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Good move, thanks. — JFG ^talk 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

About Van Gogh, I agree with the above. This alleged meeting was instrumental in Jeanne Calment becoming famous, while she was less than 115; this is well-reflected by the current page. Yet, the sentence ( "Calment claimed to reporters that she had met Van Gogh 100 years earlier, as a thirteen-year-old girl in her uncle's shop.") which is quite an approximation, since she never claimed to be thirteen (she said on TV that her husband introduced her to VvG saying "here's my wife") and that she was 13 is not her claim, but an extrapolation made recently, which is the only option to make this meeting plausible.--Alpha carinae (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Calment's story has varied depending on interviews and sources. Indeed she can't have been introduced as "my wife" because she married after Van Gogh's death, but she could have been introduced when she was 12-13 by the man who would later become her husband. In one TV interview, she stated about the Van Gogh encounter: "Je sais ma leçon par cœur", i.e. "I know my lesson by heart". The best we can do is state that she claimed to have met Van Gogh, not speculate on whether that really happened, how old she was, or who introduced him. — JFG ^talk 14:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fairly reasonable. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm affraid this debate to some extent has taken the wrong track right from the start. The infobox says specifically "Known for" and NOT "Notable for" - there is a a huge difference between the two!

Notable for would indeed have something to do with the guidelines for notability, whereas "known for" is specifically targeted at the person in question in each case - what is he or she in particullar known for - this has nothing to do with the overall notability of the person or the article about the person. Know for (in public) in the case of Jeanne Calment is as I see it two things 1) Her longevity (and we can discuss how many elements of this "longevity notability" that should be included in the "known for" section, should it only be two elements or should it be as much as four or five elements, that are worth mentioning?). 2) Her meeting with van Gogh. When this meeting took place we would probably say, that it was not a meeting of any particular importance, but when Jeanne Calment approximately 100 years later told the medias about this meeting, it became a news story, and it became something, that Jeanne Calment in public is in particular "Known for". So unless someone can pinpoint a guideline that clearly states, that only 'notable' matters can be added to the "known for" section I would say that we quiet obviously should reinstate the sentence "Last person alive to have recollections of the painter Vincent van Gogh" in the article's "Known for" section again. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

People get known for all sorts of trivial reasons because of shallow sensationalist reporting. The media focusing so much on the supposed meeting between Calment and Van Gogh is just that - sensationalism. Someone coming into your shop and you forming some opinion of them based on a momentary acquaintance is of really no import and only gets reported because of the celebrity status of the two parties (one a famous painter, one a person who was purported to be the oldest person in the world at that time). Certainly the report by Calment of meeting Van Gogh should be included in the article but I don't support its further sensationalistic treatment by putting it in the infobox. Oska (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Certainly the report by Calment of meeting Van Gogh should be included in the article": but it's already in the article. In the form of a claim by Calment. Such a claim can't be checked; the only factual information is that Calment did this claim, and its media coverage. Plausible or not, it wouldn't be serious to refer, as medias used to, to this recollection as a fact.--Alpha carinae (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Alpha carinae I think we are actually in complete agreement. I agree it's only a claim. That's why I referred to it as 'the report by Calment' and 'the supposed meeting'. There was no-one alive at the time when she made the claim to confirm that it had happened (least of all Van Gogh) and no other evidence such as a photo. It would be a very easy story to make up. But we don't know either way so yes it should always be reported as a claim. Also, I knew it was in the article when I wrote the above comment; I was just affirming its right to be there (as a reported claim) in contrast to being in the infobox. Oska (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Age controversy (again)

This feature in the Guardian contains a lot of information which could be usefully incorporated into the "skepticism" section. I don't consider myself to be well-enough acquainted with the subject to do so, so I'll leave it here in the hope that another editor might pick it up and run with it. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. This coverage provides a pretty good summary of events since the "Calment affair" broke out in late 2018, but I didn't find much in the way of new details that could be used to enhance our article. The author does mention two recent papers: a rebuttal of Zak's hypothesis by Allard and Robine, and a followup analysis of the "Jeanne really lived to 122" hypothesis by Zak. Unfortunately The Guardian does not link to those papers, but diligent Wikipedians should be able to find them and see if there's anything in there worth covering. Also interesting: "At the time of going to press, scientists from around the world were due to discuss the impact of the Calment affair on gerontology at a special meeting in Paris." We should wait to see if there's any followup reporting about that meeting of experts. — JFG ^talk 18:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Blood sample for Jeanne/Yvonne discrimination

Exhumation may not be necessary if the blood sample.can be accessed. cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 08:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/DNA-blood-test-could-reveal-if-Jeanne-Calment-was-really-122 cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 09:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you; I have added a note in the article based on this report. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If the solution is so simple (i.e., just analyze the blood sample that they already have) ... why is it not being done? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe a blood test wasn't done because there is no samples of blood for either Jeanne or Yvonne. If there were a blood sample from the body recovered on the dy of her death and from either Jeanne or Yvonne that would put the conspiracy theory to rest.Teveret1 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I find it natural to think that talk pages in Wikipedia (depending on how popular the page is) have been getting less and less attention from others as time goes by. In contrast, the Reference Desks continue to get people's attention. I suggest that this discussion should be taken to the reference desk. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Ironically, I have been finding the opposite ... that the Reference Desks are getting less and less traffic nowadays. I assumed that the Talk Page for this article attracts people more interested in the Calment age "controversy" (than does the generic Reference Desk). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hoax

This is a proven hoax and should be classified as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.127.14 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What does "this" refer to?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

85.89.127.14 is in Moscow, Russian Federation, does that answer your question? Lycurgus (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism?

The skeptism section was extensively rewritten yesterday. Many balanced and well-sourced points were removed and replaced with unbalanced comments that promote the idea that the skeptism is a Russian disinformation campaign. I propose that these edits should be reverted. Weburbia (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The new parts are sourced with high quality sources like the Washington Post or The Guardian. The removed parts on the other hand were based on cherry picked yellow press tabloids. The initial version was very biased and gave the Russian conspiracy theory too much room presenting it as valid alternative, while deliberately leaving out key points made by actual researchers familiar with the topic. Especially the September 2019 paper by Robine et al must be included, simply because it pretty much puts an end to this by showing off how flawed the Russian paper is. The Russian paper is supported by pretty much no academic source and the behaviour of some of its authors after the release was very questionable. This is a topic for WP:FRINGE and we as Wikipedia should not give a fringe theory like this the same room and place as actual verified decade long academic research.

The possibility of Russian a disinformation campaign has also been brought up by numerous reliable sources and should be mentioned here. There are reports of suspicious activities on various internet places related to gerontology. In fact, some articles even point out possible suspicious behaviour on Wikipedia itself. The Washington Post for example analyzed the editing activity of this very article and some of the users, who scrambled very fast to give great lengths to this very recent theory. In fact, it should be noted, that the Russian theory was edited into this article literally two weeks before Zak even published his paper for the first time on Researchgate. Dead Mary (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You make references to the previous article being "very biased" and "suspicious behavior on Wikipedia", yet you have made big alterations with little justification which makes the new article look completely biased the other way. You have decided to describe Jean-Marie Robine in the article as "renowned" (this is an encyclopedia, no need for this flattery), while omitting the differing opinions of others in similar professions, such as the positive comment from the Belgian demographer Michael Poulain regarding the Zak study. Although the citation is still there, the names of Leonid Gavrilov and Natalya Gavrilova have been removed from the article and simply referred to as "Russian researchers", although their skepticism on Calment predates the new studies by Zak et al. You cite articles from "high quality sources", yet the Guardian article in particular does not profess to have a firm viewpoint on this controversy, and offers a balanced view with content and arguments from both sides; you have yourself "cherry picked" the content that suits your own opinion here.

I notice too, that you have done an edit regarding the outcome of the INED meeting in January 2019. It now says that they announced that "further researched [sic] will be launched"; previously it said "an exhumation may be needed to settle the controversy." You have also omitted the point by Aubrey de Grey, which states that DNA testing on Calment's blood sample would also provide convincing scientific evidence of Calment's identity, due to Yvonne's consanguine lineage, without the need for an exhumation. This point in particular does not endorse either theory about Calment's identity; it is simply a scientific point regarding the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PharmGuy123 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about presenting "opinions" of "both sides", its about using the highest quality sources available to adequately present the current state of research. We cannot add everybody who ever said something about Calment into this article. High quality sources are from academic journals written by established authoritative scholars. Robine et al fits in this category. The Gavrilovs book on the other hand had zero impact on both the scientific scene and even the mainstream press. We cannot give room to every fringe group of people, this is a perfect case for WP:UNDUE weight. Balanced view does not and never meant that we have to give every opinion equal weight and space just because they exist. The current article does not reflect my own "opinion", but what the current academic view on the subject is. The academic verdict is still the same as before - that her age of 122 years is verified.

• It now says that they announced that "further researched [sic] will be launched"; previously it said "an exhumation may be needed to settle the controversy."

Because thats what is actually written in the source. This is one of the many things I meant with "cherry picking" and "intentionally mispresenting what is said" in the sources. Its the same with the supposed "positive comment by Poulain" you mention. Its simply not like this in the actual reference.

• Aubrey de Grey

As said before we cannot add every person who ever said something about Calment. Wikipedia is not about "every voice" or "opinion". Aubrey de Grey specifically is a pseudoscientist, who is mainly known for boasting in pompous mainstream media interviews about his claims that "humans can age until 1,000"; his academic merits however are seriously called into question by the scientific establishment. His opinion adds nothing to the article. Dead Mary (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dead Mary: The points you make are worth discussing, however I agree with PharmGuy123 and Weburbia that your edits made the article very biased towards one interpretation of the data, and added undue conspiracist overtones. For the moment, I have restored the article's longstanding version until a consensus develops on this talk page for suggested changes. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello JFG. Sorry, but the version you just introduced is now outdated by two years and a complete mess of inaccurate information, as well as outright misrepresentations of what is actually given in the quoted sources. You just removed a lot of relevant data.

I

• reinstated the most recent research about Calments age which is the paper by Robine et al from September 2019

Please dont remove the most relevant and recent academic source about Calments age from the article.

• reinstated the information about this "dispute" from both the Guardian and the Washington Post.
• removed the low quality LeParisian quotes which add nothing to the article and are wrongly quoted

The Guardian and The Washington Post are both high quality reliable sources per WP:RSP. The information they deliver is covered in a lot of other outlets too. Le Parisian on the other hand is a low quality French language tabloid. There is no reason to use it over the Post/Guardian; English language sources a have to be used over non-english sources per WP:NOENG, especially when there is such a discrepancy in quality like here.

I also reinstated the coverage about the Russian disinformation campaign. This is important information presented by a multitude of reliable sources. The deletion of this material by you - the very same editor who is literally mentioned in the Washington Post article about suspicious behaviour on Wikipedia - leaves a very weird impression on me.

I am open for discussion about these points, but please refrain from outright full-deleting the introduced material and replacing it with low quality clickbait content. Because in that case this would be actual vandalism. Dead Mary (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

My friend vandalised this page. Said she was born in 1975. Robloxman274abc (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Another source dealing with the alleged fraud

Just saw this one: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/02/17/was-jeanne-calment-the-oldest-person-who-ever-lived-or-a-fraud —ukexpat (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research refs

I did not accept a pending edit that was sourced to Jeanne Calment's Unique 122-Year Life Span: Facts and Factors; Longevity History in Her Genealogical Tree and If Jeanne Calment Were 122, That Is All the More Reason for Biosampling in Rejuvenation Research. The first paper is by François Robin-Champigneul, described by New Yorker as "One of the group’s best researchers, a telecommunications engineer". The other paper is written by "Robert Young", self-described as "Senior Consultant for Gerontology, Guinness World Records". I directed the editor to get consensus before adding. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Schazjmd. I'm not sure about this call. The pending edit looks ok to me; given the current consensus, I wouldn't leave the new Zak assertions in by themselves. This edit [9] described 1) a new Zak article adding a new angle to the non-mainstream skeptic case and 2) two responses to that article, accepted and published in the same journal. This edit [10] left Zak's article in and deleted the more mainstream responses as 'extraneous'. This definitely goes against the general consensus currently in the article. You blocked the edit that would have undone the rebuttal-removing edit. In my opinion, the second edit should have gone to the Talk page for consensus -- or maybe both the first and second edit -- but it doesn't make sense to me to leave the page in the current state.

(Less importantly: Yes, all the authors have different resumes, but the articles were all in the same journal. I don't know why you put Richard Young's name in quotes or say he is "self described", the New Yorker article cite him as a consultant to Guinness and a director at GRG piece. Yes, the New Yorker piece describes the other author as a telco engineer, but it also clearly makes Zak out as having lost objectivity. It's a tough call to put our judgment of their resumes ahead of the accepting journal's editors. In any case, it seems like the pending edit could be let through and these issues discussed on the talk page.) Chris vLS (talk) 09:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Chrisvls, I am completely unfamiliar with this article, its history, and the subject area, I was just reviewing articles with pending changes. Because it wasn't clear whether the pending edit was appropriate, I mentioned it here to begin the discussion for the editor and to make editors who know the article aware in case it was the wrong call. You are free to restore the edit if you support it. Schazjmd (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Hope I didn't come off too strong there... and it took forever to figure out what was going on... though that New Yorker article was worth the read... I'll restore it and add a talk section about the whole thing. cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

New Zak "Bayesian" news article.

Should we keep the following paragraph? Or delete it as not-notable, already summarized? The article currently includes a new Zak article and the response from the more mainstream sources.

In February 2020, Zak and Philip Gibbs published an assessment applying Bayes' theorem to the question of her authenticity, claiming "a 99.99% chance of an identity switch in the case of Mme Calment". François Robin-Champigneul and Robert Young commented on Zak's and Gibb's findings, Robin-Champigneul noting that it "appears to be in fact a subjective and nonrigorous analysis" and Young that "[i]gnoring the actual facts of the case and stringing together opinions in a 'Bayesian' analysis are to merely misuse a mathematical tool". Young found that "a very solid case that Jeanne was 122 years has already been made" but that biosampling still was needed to test "for biomarkers of extraordinary longevity". Robin-Champigneul found that "the hypothesis of an identity swap with her daughter appears not even realistic given the context and the facts, and not supported by evidence".

It is not clear to me that the new Zak article is actually notable. The New Yorker source and others treat him as "imaginatively" adding new arguments every time his past ones are rebutted. Not every exchange deserves to be in the encyclopedia. Should we remove the whole thing? Chris vLS (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

There articles however show that the scholarly debate continues and that the last word is yet to be said. 83.187.191.242 (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything that disproves the following statement:

People who reject Zak's theory are simply selfish in that they're simply doing whatever they can to try to show that it is wrong simply because they don't like it and are eager to prove that it's false.

Georgia guy (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC):::What about: Zak is rejecting the mainstream theory and is doing whatever he can to make the facts fit with his theory, like adjusting the motives of Calment (was it tax evasion? reverse mortgage? the stigma of being sick [which for some reason didn't apply to one family member]?) and adjusting the facts (with claims like "Calment mixed up 'father' with 'husband' in a way Yvonne would have", an unsubstantiated claim). I don't see why Young et al would be "selfish" in valuing the evidence. I however think that the rebuttals to Zak diserve a place in the article, since Zak's view is clearly a minority position a few ardent supporters wishes to spead by all means (like the defamatory jeannecalment.com). 80.217.183.171 (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Bayesians are not to be trusted. EEng 00:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Teveret1. Peer reviewers: Mariaharris11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edits to section on Skepticism regarding age

I am invited here by User:Peaceray to explain my recent edit, which for the most part was a revert of DeadMary's edit of last year. So here it is:

• Le Parisien, an absolutely mainstream newspaper, currently using the tabloid size format, has never been a "tabloid" newspaper (meaning low-quality, sensationalist). . . that can only be some sort of made-up excuse for DeadMary to remove the reference -- probably betting non-French speakers won't notice.
• I had never heard of Aubrey de Grey, but the term "pseudoscientist" is not used on his article, even when quoting the critics. Again, this is slander meant to remove the passage on biosampling, which would be just as true if it hadn't been de Grey who said it.

To put it bluntly, in many years on Wikipedia, I've never seen an edit explanation as dishonest as this one. People should put aside partisanship and passion before editing. P.S.: not one reference was removed in my edit, except, by mistake, one "bibcode" which had been added in 2020 between the edit and the revert. Kahlores (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

My edit summary was "purported" here is a contentious label & hardly WP:NPOV. I think that the previous language was already neutral. In addition, removal of a reference without explanation. As per WP:BRD, please discuss on the talk page before attempting this edit again.

• "purported" explicitly put in doubt the rest of the article. I think it was not neutral & gave undue weight to a minority viewpoint.
• I thought that Kahlores's edit had removed the Rosenberg 2019 citation. The diff highlighted the presence of the 1006784254 but did not highlight where it had appeared earlier in the 1006931087. I will note that Kahlore's edit did remove it as a citation for the sentence ending in "lacking, if not outright deficient". although the edit did not remove the citation from the article entirely. I think I made an honest mistake in stating that it had been removed, implying that it had been removed altogether. I apologize for my inexactitude.

Kahlores, other than the possible misconstruing about the particulars of that citation removal, was there anything else that you found dishonest about my edit summary?

I do think that there is more to discuss about this. Usually when an edit has stood for over a year, edit by consensus prevails, unless a different consensus is obtained by on the talk page. Kahlores, why did you not wait for a response after I asked you to discuss this on the talk page before immediately reverting back to a 13-month old version?

This is not a new issue. The Skepticism regarding age issue & Novoselov's questioning has been discussed several times & can be found in the following archives:

• Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 1#Given the recent piece of info...
• Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 2#Fringe Theory & Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 2#French media coverage
• Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 3 (multiple sections)
• Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4 (multiple sections)

It would have been my hope that a consensus discussion would have occurred before reverting a seemingly settled version. Peaceray (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

was there anything else that you found dishonest about my edit summary? Nothing! It wasn't your edit summary, but Dead Mary's arguments last year that I found factually wrong. Given your large number of edits and your use of a special tool, I interpreted your revert as the result of a false positive of that tool due to Rosenberg's reference being moved somewhat above, or the bibcode being mistakenly removed. This is also why I chose to revert it immediately, for fear of making you lose time. I also hope that we will reach consensus. Kahlores (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the article is still giving too much room for these Russian conspiracy theories - even in the restored "NPOV" version. They are not accepted by mainstream science and are mostly based on unreliable sometimes tabloid level sources. It has been reported by several reliable sources (such as WaPo), that the entire story is possibly a Russian disinformation campaign - in fact - the very editor who introduced this stuff into wikipedia had been highlighted by the mainstream press. I find it very telling that some editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep this bit out of the article. Dead Mary (talk) 08:03, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not just the Russians! I used to believe; but I now lean towards scepticism. The most common source of inflated longevity claims in otherwise well-documented cases is identity substitution. Identity substitution has already twice tripped up Guinness validators - the Joubert and Izumi cases (cf. https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Pierre_Joubert & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigechiyo_Izumi) Ruling out an identity switch in an era of mass-photography ought to be straightforward. Therefore the selective destruction of photographic and documentary evidence by Calment's heir, reportedly on her instructions, is a very unfortunate coincidence. The case may be genuine. But if we agree with the scientific maxim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE), then is a nagging scepticism here unreasonable? It's regrettable the debate has become so politicised. --Davidcpearce (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Currently, the gerontology.wikia.org/ uses three sources as authorities:

• "1988: Oldest Living Human Being of All Time". Guinness World Records. 2015-08-18. Retrieved 2021-02-17.
• "World's Oldest Woman & World's Oldest Man Ever". Gerontology Research Group Index Page, as of [1997 - 2007]. 1997-08-04. Retrieved 2021-02-17.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• "Database". International Database on Longevity. Retrieved 2021-02-17.

None of these sources has recanted that the verified oldest human being lived to 122 years. Therefore we should accept that at face value while all three continue to attest to this.

Skepticism is not the same as disproof. We are right to question. However, we are incorrect to base decisions on conjecture & unproven allegations. The history of science is littered with doubters who rejected what is now obvious because it seemed unlikely at the time.

Regarding destruction of material, well, that happens all the time at the end or after a person's life. My step-grandmother-in-law destroyed a valuable set of china because it was old. Franz Kafka burned 90% of his work. Other artists have sought to destroy their creative work at the end. There are many who simply want to go to the grave unencumbered, or who want whatever privacy that is possible, or simply want to be forgotten. As for the heir, sometimes destruction of the dead's possession is an act of closure. I cannot speak for Calment's wishes or her heir's acts, but I think we err if we automatically assume such acts were necessarily nefarious. Peaceray (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. The selective destruction of evidence could be entirely innocent. On the other hand, if Yvonne Calment usurped her mother's identity for financial reasons, then exposure would mean Raffray's heirs had a claim against the Calment estate ("In life, one sometimes makes bad deals" - Jeanne/Yvonne Calment).

My view? Well, I’m not sure it’s relevant for Wikipedia purposes. Let’s just say financial chicanery among humans is extremely common, whereas living into one’s thirteenth decade is vanishingly rare. --Davidcpearce (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The Washington Post article that suspected malicious intent from the Russians, was published in January 2019, only three weeks after the Russians' articles. The author did no investigation of its own, besides asking those involved for their opinion. It also quotes extensively this talk page, when as we all know activity on a Wikipedia page is the consequence, not the cause, of media exposure. In fact, both parties personally intervened on the page.

Supercentenarian frauds are very common. The three Russian men involved are not related to the Russian state, as they work in the private sector. What motive Russia could have to topple a national figure of France isn't explained, all the more so given that French-Russian relations are traditionally warmer than with Anglo-Saxon countries. Moreover, the Zak-Novoselov-Deigin team have had support outside of Russia, based not on geopolitical leanings but on expertise (Rejuvenation, Gibbs). And to top it all, the claim was made long before, by French insurers in the know (something the W.P. article admits itself -- I added the reference: Daniel 2007).

The claim of a Russian conspiracy is so fragile that it can't be a reason to suppress the claimants' best arguments. I urge anyone to revert DeadMary's undue suppression of two good references.

P.S.: it could also be said, though, based on the W.P. article, that this Russian conspiracy theory was brought up by the defendants, Robine and Young.

Kahlores (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that some editors want to promote this conspiracy theory about a Russian disinformation campaign. The WP article tells us that it came from a leaked private email written by Robert Young. It is Zak who calls that a conspiracy theory. The Guardian article cited as another source says that the evidence for it is thin. There is no comparison to the US elections in either source, a reference invented by the wikipedia editors that will be lost in time. When Novoselov said he would involve the Investigative Committee of Russia as well as the American FBI he was not threatening Robine and Young or anybody else, he was merely suggesting to ask the agencies to use their forensic capabilities to examine the evidence for an identity switch. The way it has been presented in the article does not reflect either the news reports cited as sources or the actual events. Weburbia (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully concur with you, Weburbia. I've just reworded the passage on Russia like this:

Robine, along with Robert Young, the Guiness World Records validator, and the Washington Post, also claimed that it could be a Russian disinformation campaign,[28] although the evidence for that is thin.[33] Novoselov tried to involve the Federal Investigative Committee of Russia to get an authoritative forensic portrait examination, but was later told that the pictures' quality wasn't good enough.[33]

We are at least three to think the same (with Davidcpearce) but there's a rule called WP:3RR which prevents the same user from reverting three times in 24 hours. I already reverted DeadMary's partisan editing twice in 1 week, which means I may need your help if it comes back again... Kahlores (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

If they are really so determined to keep something that is so obviously wrong and not supported by the sources they cite, best to just leave them to it.Weburbia (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kahlores I reverted your change. Please read WP:NOTVANDAL and WP:AGF and stop falsely accusing other editors of vandalism. I suggest that you apologize to User:Dead Mary. About your change, you removed the fact that the russian "study" was rejected by peer reviewed journals. Which is kind of important information. --McSly (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have retracted on my talk page. I am currently looking for the word that fits the removal of two good sources, one of which, in fact, is an article (from the New Yorker) that concludes against the skeptics! I don't assume bad faith, but this is certainly partisanship, so blind that it leads them to remove sources in their favour...

On the other side, I am fully able to admit my mistakes. It is easy to confuse various paragraphs during a chaotic edit war. I never sought to hide the fact that Zak et al. was rejected by more reputed journals, that is, this sentence :

A Russian scientific journal rejected Zak's paper as being too informal, as did the bioRxiv preprint repository, and Zak published it instead on ResearchGate, a social networking site for scientists and researchers.

That said, we also need to bring the two removed sources back: New Yorker's Lauren Collins and Daniel 2007. Kahlores (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kahlores, stop bloating up the "Skepticism regarding age" like this. This is isn't a dumping ground for everything anyone ever said about Calment's age. The age skepticism section is already far too big. There is no need to endlessly go over these Russian conspiracy theories and give them more room than required by adding every random internet page and tabloid source one can find with Google. In fact, we actually should trim this down by removing most of this clutter and limit it to a few sentences about Zak accompanied with the already well sourced rebuttals from academic sources. Dead Mary (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this revert; the section is already long enough and more additions are giving the theory undue weight.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I also agree per WP:DUE, we don't need to bloat this conspiracy theory any more than it already is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the article should mainly be about the subject, that's the reason for the article in the first place. Any odd theory that someone may bring forward about a subject isn't the main focus for any subject unless it's an article about conspiracy theories. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello to all the new faces,

Pawnkingthree, Oleryhlolsson, Knowledgekid87, I partly concur with what you said, but you shouldn't forget that longevity claims of supercentenarians are, for the large majority, bunk. There are countless "world's oldest" coming up in the news, later found to have switched with a relative for some reason, or to have used doubtful documents. This can also happen after validation: see "117 y.o." Lucy Hannah not until 2020, "120 y.o." Shigechiyo Izumi until 2012, see also. It is perfectly normal, when describing supercentenarians, to discuss the validity of their claims, which is the Wikipedia custom.

It definitely meets WP:DUE WEIGHT, as

1. the Zak paper and Deigin article have led to renewed media coverage worldwide. Google News
2. for the first time since her passing in 1997, thorough research is being done, validators dug out the old tapes, relatives are pressed to grant exhumation to check DNAs.
3. Without the renewed debate, we wouldn't even be sure that the bobbed hair picture was Yvonne's.

Now let me respond to DeadMary:

1. stop bloating up the [section] I've added just three sentences. The rest was already there. "bloating up"? If you really want to make constructive trims, then why don't you start from the version I improved?
2. tabloid source which tabloid? are you still trying to slander Le Parisien? I repeat, and anyone can check: the newspaper is in no way boulevardpresse/tabloid journalism but a regular mainstream paper . . . with a tabloid paper format.
3. these Russian conspiracy theories Why don't you respond to the objections above by Davidcpearce, Weburbia and myself? There is no evidence of a "conspiracy", and the theory is not even Russian since at least one French source brought it up. If you are really looking for a NPOV, then you have to say that it is a claim by some the defendants, and that evidence for it has been judged "thin" by The Guardian, a journal which last year you called a high quality reliable source.

With all due respect, DeadMary's behavior has all the hallmarks of POV-pushing:

• removes key non-Russian references claiming there was a fraud (Daniel's 2007 book)
• baselessly claims that Le Parisien is "tabloid" because it refers to that book and author, but does not quote the "high quality reliable" Guardian when it said evidence of a conspiracy is "thin"
• reverts all of my 10 step-by-step edits, which were made precisely so we could advance on particular issues, now claiming 3 more sentences "bloat" the section

Perhaps admin Peaceray could help mend fences. I do seek consensus, and have never removed any reference unless by mistake. But anyone looking at the edit history and talk page can attest: this is, sadly, not reciprocal.

P.S.: For starters, the renewed interest in Mrs Calment's life started with this piece.

Kahlores (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The conspiacy theory is the Russian paper by Zak itself. Jeanne Calment's age has been verified by reputable scientists over and over again. Zak has no knowledge about gerontology, has no academic credibility in this area and his methods are questionable as has been shown over and over again by actual scientists from the field. Le Parisian, New Yorker, random google books and all these fringe webpages you add are not reliable enough sources for a topic like that. Academic sources agree univocally that her age is verified and valid. Clogging this articles with all these tabloids sources and giving these fringe opinions so much room while simultaneously minimizing actual scientic papers creates the false impression that there is any merit to the Russian conspiracy theories. You are literally arguing that a yellow press article from Le Parisian warrants the same or even more space than actual academic published sources. Its getting pretty ridiculous here.

The largest section of this article is now about Zak's paper. Jeanne Calment is known to be the oldest person in human history; but the largest part of her article is dedicated to a fringe Russian mathematician who gained prominence via a blog post on medium and whose findings have been rejected over and over again by the scientific community. We should severely cut down this section and give Zak 2-3 sentences at most + another larger paragraph with the findings from actual gerontologists. Dead Mary (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The findings have been rejected by the original validators and their close allies who built their scientific careers over the Calment case. It is false to claim that there is any independent consensus. This claim in the article is based on a survey of nine "scientists" by the WP, but we dont know who they were or how they were selected. They said that the original paper was deficient, which is not the same thing as dismissing the claims. The extensive global reporting of this skepticism justifies detailed coverage in Wikipedia. Weburbia (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If we are bound to reach a conclusion in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia i would point at three possible solutions.

1) We stick to the 'limited' version about the "Skepticism regarding age" (which I actually still find a bit too long for the purpose).

2) Given the media focus and interest in this Russian theory then the theory/controversy about the age and personality swift could perhaps be the basis for an article of it's own, something like perhaps "Jeanne and Yvonne Calment personality switch theory", then the Jeanne Calment aticle could be preserved as something like this, and a link to a "Main article" about the personality switch theory.

3) We could also say, that the focus on this "personality switch theory" in the main article about Jeanne Calment should be trimmed further than it has been for the recent days, and therefore the main description on this theory should be provided by the suggested article about the theory itself ("Jeanne and Yvonne Calment personality switch theory") and not by the article about Jeanne Calment itself? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I support the suggestion of a separate page, but the title should be broader, e.g "Scepticism regarding the longevity of Jeanne Calment" Weburbia (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever thoughts went into this suggestion, I don't think it will be in accordance with the naming practice of articles here on Wikipedia to use skepticism this way.

Iv'e only come accross a very modest numbers of articles, that uses the word skepticism in the name of the article. In general, when skepticism is used in the names of articles, its usually used in a much broarder sense than merely about a single disputed issue.

The cases of skepticism in the names of the articles I have found include these:

Euroscepticism

Moral skepticism

Academic skepticism

Scepticism and Animal Faith

Skepticism in law

Religious skepticism

Environmental skepticism

Lists of skepticism topics

List of books about skepticism Oleryhlolsson (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont know which feature of naming policy covers what you describe. My thinking was that if it is good enough for the section title it should also work for the article title. However, it could be that "Sceptism" is not sufficiently neutral. The English vs American spelling could also prove contentious. If a more specific title is preferred, I think "Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis" is more succinct and correct.Weburbia (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How would we respond if a publicity-loving, supposedly 120-year-old _Russian_ claimant to World's Oldest Person instructed selective destruction of documentary and photographic evidence? We'd probably be rather sceptical of the extraordinary longevity claim - especially if the claimant and her family had a financial incentive to fib about her identity and age. Patriotic Russians would probably dismiss Western "conspiracy theorists". They’d tell us top Russian validators had authenticated the case. Perhaps they'd be right! But consider the comparative frequency of living into one’s thirteenth decade and financial chicanery. I hate being cynical, but if we're Bayesian rationalists, then sadly a verdict of "not proven" would be wise.--Davidcpearce (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)