Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"GA" status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection

Jeanne Calment

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

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

Gap between Calment and the next oldest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British English for this article??

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

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

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

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

Scepticism regarding age section is getting argumentative, lengthy and non encyclopedic again

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

Picture of Yvonne

One of the newly-published articles about the Yvonne hypothesis[1] 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,[2] reprinted 1998[3]), where two pictures on the same page are clearly labeled "up: Jeanne Calment dressed as an Arlésienne", "down: Yvonne, Jeanne Calment's daughter".[4] 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)

I made a first edit to correct the record.[5] Feel free to improve. — JFG ^talk 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately here are the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Knowledgekid87: I'm disappointed to see you edit-war over this caption. A majority of editors have expressed their support for including an explanation as to why this picture of Yvonne Calment is even here. The mislabeling was uncovered as part of the identity substitution hypothesis, but that does not even matter: we must correct it and own up to our mistake for the sake of readers. Regarding your WP:CIRC argument, we would in fact be encouraging citogenesis if we did not explain what happened. As I noted at the top of this thread, the picture was uploaded in 2008 based on its appearance and caption in the GRG gallery. Over the intervening years, several sources referred to Wikipedia as showing a picture of Jeanne aged 22. The discrepancy was highlighted when recent articles looking at pictures of Calment "discovered" that the same picture (cropped differently) had been published in the 1995 biography by George Simonoff, where it was correctly captioned as a photograph of Yvonne. Subsequently, Michel Allard confirmed the correct captioning, and the GRG corrected their gallery. I was the first one to correct the caption here on Wikipedia,[6] and I am still very much convinced that the longstanding error must be explained to our readers, especially as some readers may come to Wikipedia after reading in the Deigin piece that we had it wrong. — JFG ^talk 17:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You and I both know that content from Wikipedia is user edited and not reliable unless backed up by a source. We even have a disclaimer [7] which states "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Paris Match interview of Jeanne from 1988

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

References

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

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

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

Proposal: Create a "Scepticism on extreme longevity" page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or, an Yvonne Calment article . . .

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

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

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

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

Sarah Knauss

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

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

Washington Post article calling the questioning a Russian Conspiracy Theory

Hello All. The WaPo has a long story detailing what it calls a Russian Conspiracy Theory, and notes that it has seeped into the Wikipedia article.[8] It is troubling that WP:NPOV seems so vulnerable to such a concerted conspiracy, which seems to have woven itself into the article pretty substantially (including in the lede). If NPOV asks us to "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." it seems like the weight given to *ONE* self-published article that was rejected twice by peer review is definitely WP:UNDUE. And when you frame it inside the overall conspiracy, it is even more asymmetrical. --Theredproject (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Why has the new theory been criticized??

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

@Georgia guy: take a look at the WaPo article for a list of people who are criticizing it, and their reasons.[9] --Theredproject (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Exhumation

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

Washington Post article

Extensive discussion of the current controversy: [10]. Acroterion (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Already cited in our article. And apparently, according to the Post, I'm a Russian agent! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 04:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be making news, it should be documenting current events. This is why we have WP:ADVOCATE, we took one conspiracy theory and started a section based on self-published sources. Nobody else was reporting about it at the time... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The Zak study made news all over the world, that's not Wikipedia's fault. And only the Post is calling this hypothesis a "conspiracy theory", probably due to the ambient Russophobia in Washington… Serious gerontologists have always done their best to validate or invalidate claims of extreme age; there's nothing unusual here, except the cult status of Jeanne Calment. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like this is politically motivated in at least some way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, I didn't get my paycheck. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How in the world could skepticism about an old dead woman's age be political? Jonathunder (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I also wonder what Russia's interest may be (hint: none). Especially given that the next longevity "titleholder" is Sarah Knauss, a U.S. woman. — JFG ^talk 12:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Washington Post article disputes factual accuracy and neutrality of "Scepticism regarding age" section

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/01/12/how-madame-calment-worlds-oldest-person-became-fuel-russian-conspiracy-theory/?utm_term=.e911a782030b

Some relevant sections:

'Zak, who hadn’t published any work since he was a PhD student about 10 years ago, said he researched his paper entirely from Russia, examining Calment’s life through records he found online. He submitted the Calment study to a Russian scientific journal, which told him it was written too casually, and BioRxiv, a server for articles hosted by a lab in Cold Spring, N.Y., also rejected it.'

'The media coverage had masked the tensions seeping out about the Russian’s report. Debates erupted between Zak and some researchers on Facebook. One posted a screenshot of the editing history for Calment’s Wikipedia page, writing about a “war on Wiki.”'

'“Greetings, there appears to be an intentional Anti-Jeanne Calment (anti-France=anti-EU=anti-West) disinformation and propaganda campaign coming from Russia and it is targeting many outlets including the 110 Club,” Young had written, speaking of the Wikipedia page and other blogs. “If you see a new sign up who posts as among their very first posts an anti-Calment message, please block their account for 7 days minimum post a message here about it. Thanks.”'

'The Post interviewed nine scientists, including Young, with expertise in the world of gerontology, statistics and demography. All but one of the eight who had examined Zak’s research said they found it lacking, if not outright deficient. The two French gerontologists involved in Calment’s verification also questioned it.'

'“This reminds me of 'Nasa stages the moon landing.’ And someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy,” said Steve Austad, a gerontologist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, bringing up two of the more famous modern conspiracy theories. “Which is that people are looking for tiny inconsistencies in evidence that probably have no meaning and then overlooking a vast amount of evidence that her identity is confirmed with more than 30 government documents.”'

'“You can talk with any scholar, who would say, we would not accept this even from a student,” Robine said in an interview. “It’s not scientific, there’s no methodology, no hypothesis, no nothing. It’s just, like, a document, bringing more sentences to say Jeanne Calment is not Jeanne Calment.”' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

'Scientists interviewed were quick to say that Russia did not have a good reputation in the world of longevity research, in which frauds are not uncommon and the need for reliable documentation is high.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good point. It is a shame that some Wikipedia editors have bought into this garbage fringe theory. Eventually, when enough editors realize that this fringe theory has mainly been promoted on Wikipedia, a consensus will emerge to label it as such.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

For those coming on now, the presence of Zak's study within the article is now in dispute. Merely mentioning that issues have been raised with the study within the article itself does not address the issue, as presenting Calment's age as "in controversy" places undue weight upon this single, self published study per WP:FRINGE. As a reminder, please do not remove maintenance tags without discussing it on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 07:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a very good point. Actually I am One of Many, it's a terrible point. None of the passages quoted justify Voteins' claim that "Washington Post article disputes factual accuracy and neutrality of "Scepticism regarding age" section". They dispute the factual accuracy of Zak's study, is all. But the Wikipedia article only presents Zak's theory as theory, not as fact. Please explain what precise claims are being challenged that merit the {{Disputed-section}} template. If you're sceptical of the Zak hypothesis and think it doesn't deserve mention, go ahead and make your case, but that is a different matter. To label a section as being of dubious factual accuracy just because the theory it discusses is disputed is not acceptable. Perhaps {{fringe-section}} would be more appropriate? presenting Calment's age as "in controversy" places undue weight upon this single, self published study per WP:FRINGE Where exactly does the article refer to Calment's age as ""in controversy""? And if you had read the section you'd know that this is far from being the first time that Calment's age has been questioned. So it's not like a section is being built just based on this "single, self published study". Citizen Canine (talk) 10:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconding what Citizen Canine wrote. The Zak hypothesis is presented as theory, not as fact, and it is has WP:DUE WEIGHT for inclusion in the encyclopedia because of the extensive RS coverage it has received. It's not a fringe theory, it's a credible alternative explanation based on mistaken or fraudulent identity, which is a routine occurrence in examination of cases of exceptional human longevity. I will henceforth remove the "disputed" and "undue weight" tags. — JFG ^talk 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Since when did a highly contested "conspiracy theory" become a "hypothesis"? Is anyone using the word "hypothesis" to describe this research? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, Davidcpearce please stop edit warring over this. Knowledgekid "Hypothesis" is a reasonable, neutral way to describe Zak's paper and doesn't give it any undue gravitas as you seem to think.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but not when it involves accusations of conspiracy to commit fraud. We have to at the very least present both sides of the argument as this wasn't just some revived scientific interest out of the blue according to the sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Part of this edit war comes from an overfocus on the lede. It shouldn't characterize the competing claims and it doesn't need citations. Jonathunder (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, most sources call this a theory, a scenario or a hypothesis. The author of the first interview, Elena Milova, even intervened here to make sure that Wikipedia would not describe the Zak study as an allegation, stressing that Novoselov does not claim any wrongdoing. So far, only the Washington Post author has called this a "Russian conspiracy theory", but of course the "Evil Russia" mantra tends to attract clicks these days. — JFG ^talk 15:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to go by WP:Fringe, and especially WP:PARITY, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FALSEBALANCE inclusion of Zak's paper in any form is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Zak's paper was refused peer review and self published online, and is self admittedly based primarily on theory and conjecture. Mr. Zak is not a well regarded expert in demography or longevity research, and his research methodology has been criticized by several experts in the field according to a well regarded journalistic source. Just the inclusion of the section gives undue weight to the theory that Ms. Calment lied about her age by implying that parity exists between the two sides. There is not. On one side there exists a single unpeereviewed paper, the equally unsubstantiated and unreviewed sources of which are cited separately cited multiple times to obscure the fact that the entire theory rests upon this single limb, versus decades of peer reviewed research and the opinions of numerous experts in the field. Including sections arguing against Zak's paper does not remove this issue, it merely presents a false balance which obscures the relative prominence of the two sides.

Jonathunder and JFG, I urge you to click though the maintenance tags and read in what situations they should be removed, and also review WP:OWNERSHIP. Myself and several other editors (in addition to a major journalistic news outlet) have raised issue with the current status of the article, and this should be discussed in the talk page both by us and other editors. Maintenance tags do not in and of themselves state that an article's information is false, merely that its accuracy is in dispute and invites other editors in to build consensus. Removing the tags after just a few hours robs these other editors of their chance to participate in the discussion. Please allow a few days of discussion before removing them, or least wait until some editors from the opposing side have a chance to post on the talk page to confirm consensus. It's always important to remember that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia. Continued edit warring like this will require us to start a formal dispute resolution, which is never fun.

Voteins(talk) 23:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Certainly there is no deadline, however I still maintain that the tags you added are not justified, given the current balanced contents of the article and the prior discussions on this page since December. Let's examine what the {{fringe}} tag says:

This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories.

The tags starts: "This article may present fringe theories." It is your assessment, backed by the Washington Post author Eli Rosenberg, that the identity switch hypothesis is a fringe theory. By Wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE, the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The identity switch hypothesis does depart from the mainstream view, but is not an outlandish claim akin to the 9/11 "LIHOP" theory; re-examination of longevity records is a routine occurrence in the field of gerontology. Several cases of extreme age that were once considered valid have been demoted by later studies; there is nothing exceptional or disparaging in this process.

The FRINGE guideline further states: If discussed in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. This article meets the "mainstream idea" criterion that Jeanne Calment lived for 122 years, and it explains the alternative hypothesis that the lady who died in 1997 may have been Calment's daughter and lived only 99 years, in a balanced and neutral way. All of the assertions discussing the hypothesis (pro or contra) are backed by multiple reliable sources and attributed to their authors. Even one of the doctors who initially validated Calment's age has stated that he considers the Yvonne hypothesis plausible, and he vowed to re-assess all his taped Calment interviews with a fresh perspective.

The tag goes on "without giving appropriate weight to the mainstream view", but the article gives major weight to the mainstream view, and does not present the Yvonne theory as fact; it merely explains it as a realistic possibility which has been studied by numerous experts in the field ever since Calment's life came to light, and has received massive coverage lately due to renewed inquiries along this line of reasoning. The article currently offers a balanced and neutral treatment of the substitution theory in the context of the dominant mainstream view. Some editors who wanted to list Calment's age or birth date as "disputed" were appropriately reverted, affirming the prevalence of the mainstream view.

Finally the tag states "[without] explaining the responses to the fringe theories." Again, the article in its current state gives strong weight to the rebuttals of the Yvonne theory, both in the lead and in the dedicated "Scepticism about age" section. Consequently, none of the reasons for labeling the article with the {{fringe}} tag are valid, and it should be removed. Naturally, the article can continue to evolve, and we all hope that new information will come to light in order to vindicate Calment's record age or to prove the Yvonne theory. Whatever the outcome, readers will be better informed. — JFG ^talk 09:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the article as written here is one of the most biased statements of this conspiracy found online. All of the points made have their source in an unpublishable article (reliable sources repeat claims made in this article, but did not independently source them). So, all of this is based on an unpublishable article written by a person with no expertise in the field. Take a look at this Scientific American article "The Conspiracy Theory Detector" and I think you will see that several of the criteria are clearly met by this "theory".--I am One of Many (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The truth of the Yvonne theory depends on a few unreliable sources, but the section in the article is not supporting the truth of the theory, it merely says there is a controversial and disputed claim. The sources for the notability of the controversy are numerous media reports which have extended to major national papers around the world. They are reliable for establishing the notability of the controversy. Weburbia (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The issue is not that this fringe conspiracy theory has become notable by world-wide reporting, the issue is that as written, there is no mention that it is fringe theory in the relevant scientific communities and that it is a conspiracy theory (e.g., that it required all people in her city to remain completely silent all this time).--I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a reliable source (Kirkwood) mentioning explicitly that the arguments developed by Allard and Robine do not discard the eventuality of an identity usurpation. There is no reliable source discarding this usurpation eventuality by any kind of analysis; arguments are limited to 1-sentence variation on "it's unlikely, it would have been known". (In Kirkwood: "But any deception on Madame Calment's part would have required extraordinary prescience and the connivance of surviving relatives and we should banish such thoughts from our minds.")--Alpha carinae (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessing tags

"Disputed" tags

There are currently three "disputed" tags into the article:

• a {{fringe}} tag at the top: see long discussion above, where I explain why this tag is not justified.
• a {{dubious-inline}} tag in the lead, qualifying the identity switch hypothesis. I have rephrased the relevant passage to stress that it is not an allegation, and made it clear it's only a theory advanced by some researchers, while others have re-affirmed Calment's extreme age.[11]
• a {{disputed-section}} tag in the "Scepticism regarding age" section. This tag says "This section's factual accuracy is disputed." That is not correct: the Yvonne theory itself is disputed, but this section reflects the coverage of the theory, which is itself factual. I could not find one statement in the whole section that was not backed by verifiable RS. Remember that Wikipedia upholds WP:Verifiability not truth.

In light of these clarifications, I believe that all tags should be removed. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll just explain this again. JFG, User:Jonathunder, and User:Citizen_Canine I'd like you to read this since you've been engaging me in an edit war. There is zero need to argue over the maintenance tags. They aren't even technically part of the article. All the maintenance tags say is that there is currently a dispute going on in the talk page. Thus arguments over their "validity" are irreverent, as my and other editor's very posting here proves there is a dispute in progress. That doesn't mean either side is right They should only be removed when there no longer is a dispute, aka consensus. In addition to inviting anyone who views the page to join in the discussion, the tags automatically place the article on several listings which other editors monitor just to resolve disputes like this. They're there to help us solve this by getting more eyes on the problem. When we reach that consensus the tags are no longer necessary and can be deleted. To prevent further edit warring I'll ask User:Citizen_Canine to reverse their edit and restore the tags. Otherwise I don't see any option but to request the page be semi-protected and a dispute resolution initiated to ensure this debate isn't monopolized by the select few editors who happen across the talk page.

To get to the actual point, myself and I_am aren't arguing that there needs to be more "balance" in the article and the tags somehow achieve this, but that the Zak study is an insufficient source on its own to merit any mention of disputes regarding Calment's true age. This is based on the same theory of how we don't include a section on flat earth theories in our astronomy articles, or that in that scientific consensus supporting the mainstream view is so overwhelming that including alternate views in the article is pointlessly confusing. As I said, on one side with have a widely criticized paper made by a non-expert compiling (and quite frankly cherry picking) various facts he found online versus a multitude of peer reviewed demographic studies utilizing vast amounts of original research and the expert opinions of the majority of demographers and longevity researchers. Calment's longevity has been called one of the most well substantiated lifespans of any centenarian, to even pretend a debate exists amongst the scientific community should take more than a rejected research paper by a random Russian PHD student. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we have no need for "coverage" Wikipedia sources should be reliable and reflect majority and significant minority views, not those of a single researcher Wikipedia articles on well known topics should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced by obscure texts that lack peer review. Self published sources are not considered verifiable if they make exceptional claims or claims about third parties. Under all these rules the Zak study fails the standard for inclusion in the article, and thus all references to it should be removed. As the article relies exclusively on Zak's research to substantiate any claim that Calment lied about her age these sections will likely have to be removed as a consequence.

Voteins (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The person substitution hypothesis is a routine occurrence in the study of longevity claims, hence it's plausible in Calment's case, and it's worth mentioning due to the extensive coverage it has received. On the other hand, the Flat Earth theory is complete bollocks, that anybody can disprove in 2 minutes of watching videos of rocket launches (or for the more intellectually-minded, by wondering how GPS works). In other words, Flat Earth is fringe, Yvonne is not (and even if it may be considered fringe in the broadest sense of the term, we cover it adequately per WP:FRINGE guidelines). — JFG ^talk 22:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Many previous official longevity record-holders have had their titles revoked. See Longevity claims#Problems in documenting. Maintenance tags are not self-justifying but need to be specific and relevant. Rather than pointlessly re-adding them I'll instead refer you to WP:Responsible tagging and enjoin you to stop tag bombing. You're more than welcome to raise concerns but be prepared to justify them. I'd already asked you to identify which specific claims made by the article are subject to dispute, which you have still failed to do.

It's true that Wikipedia is not news, but that is one of the most overused arguments in favour of deletion. News coverage does not definitively establish notability, but neither is it totally irrelevant. The Zak hypothesis has received a wide news coverage and been extensively commented on by the original scientists who studied Calment's case. In any case the section has far more substance to it than the recent Russian study. The same identity-substitution hypothesis was already referred to as early as 2001 by Kirkwood, a notable biologist. In short, the Zak hypothesis counts as a significant minority opinion, not a fringe theory, and is given appropriate weight. Citizen Canine (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to try and say this as simply as I can. So it seems to me, looking at the article, the only source for any dispute about Calment's age is Zak's study. Every citation related to the controversy is either a news piece reporting on Zak's study, or disputing Zak's study, or a source from Zak's study. And the problem is, in my and other's personal views as a wikipedia editors, the Zak study does not constitute a reliable source. We have explained the reasons for this in a earlier posts, but for the moment lets just stick with the tags. Now my task as a wikipedia editor to improve wikipedia articles. Thus, if I do not consider the Zak paper a reliable source by usual wikipedia procedures I should indeed not place any tags. Instead I should immediately remove all mention of it from the article myself.

However I've been around the block enough times to spot when an edit might be controversial. I checked the edit history and notice there were several users repeatedly editing the section, and so I get the distinct feeling that you and others will object to me deleting this content. Rather than start an immediate edit war by correcting what I and others see as an error in the article, I am making a good faith effort to start a discussion about it instead. You and JFG can have your say, me and I_am can have our say, but more importantly third party editors can come in and have their say. And while that's going on, it's important to have the page tagged to let editors who might stumble across the page to know what's going on. Now once we've gotten a good group of editors together and they've all had their say it's fairly likely a majority of them will come to some sort of agreement about whether the Zak study should stay or not. While that's happening I'd encourage any editor to avoid deleting the in dispute sections even though I'm arguing for that exact outcome, to the point that I'll personally reverse those edits if no one else has. Once everyone has reached some form of agreement, the sections will either be deleted or declared acceptable, and then the tags can be removed.

So in short, I am tagging the article out of respect for you and the other editors who have worked on it. I still believe that the sections I tagged need to be deleted, but I'm holding off from doing so until there's some sort of widespread agreement on Wikipedia about the issue. In the meantime the tags stay a the sign of simply that, that there isn't widespread agreement on this issue. That, as the tags state, portions of the article are in dispute not by outside sources but internally. And when internally we reach some sort of agreement (that might not be what I think is best, but will be supported by a large amount of users), then the tags are no longer relevant.

That's as good as I can explain things, personally I see it as "content disputes in wikipedia 101". For reference read up on CON and please note the reasons maintenance tags should not be removed, specifically reasons 1, 2, and 3. Note that the "issue" here is the continued presence of the Zak study in the article, and the resolution would be its removal (or consensus is reached that it should remain). So, based on this I'm going to re-add the tags one last time. If you revert the edit again, I just don't see any other option but to start up a dispute resolution. As for the main issue, I'm going to post my reasoning alongside I_am's for why the Zak study should be removed. Voteins (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not Mme Calment committed fraud is a controversial question not supported by reliable sources. Whether or not there is a controversy is beyond question and is supported by news articles in major papers of several countries. The article only claims that there is a controversy and explains some of its basic elements. It is perfectly balanced on the issues. Removing the sections on the controversy would be incorrect. Weburbia (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Voteins: Thank you for your detailed explanations. It is indeed obvious that there is an ongoing disagreement among experienced editors about the appropriateness of citing the Zak study, or of mentioning the Yvonne hypothesis at all. As we haven't been able to narrow down the gap between our positions after much discussion and a few reverts, the best course of action would be to raise an RfC, and both the contents and the tags to remain in place during the RfC process. I will think of the best way to formulate the question in a neutral way, so that we can open up the conversation to a wider range of Wikipedians. — JFG ^talk 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JFG Thank you for your comment as well, and I agree that an RFC is completely warranted at this juncture. I'm probably not going to have the time to start and RfC and post it to all the relevant village pumps, etc for the next few days. Feel free to make one yourself in the meantime, I was going to direct people to your section just below anyways. Weburbia, valid comment but I think it'd be better suited for the section below. If it's at all possible I'd think it best to keep discussion about tags in this section, and reserve the more complex discussion about whether or not the Zak study is reliable for that other one. Voteins (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand why the section is tagged, but throwing a "badge of shame" on the entire article until that is resolved is overkill. Jonathunder (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if the tag were removed, the issue would still be there. The addition of the tag just lets uninvolved editors know that it needs to be resolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus to remove the "fringe" tag from this article. I agree with Knowledgekid87 that we need more uninvolved editors here.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I mightily disagree with any notion that the tags are a "badge of shame", although I understand some might view them that way. Important to note the tags say "This article may present fringe theories", not that it definitely does. At worst, they're like like a "please pardon our dust" sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

"Condense" tag

"Health and lifestyle" section is tagged {{condense}}. This tag states "This section may have too many subsection headers dividing up its content." Probably this section needs some rewriting, but I don't see how it contains too many subsections. I would advocate removing this tag as well. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Well let me put it to you this way.... do we really need an entire subsection devoted to her "Diet at age 116"? Condensing means trimming down the excess un-needed detail and making the section into a few paragraphs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely those one-paragraph sections can be combined into one. Would that be enough to remove the tag in your reckoning? — JFG ^talk 22:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I have condensed the "Health and lifestyle" section, merged duplicate information, and removed the tag. — JFG ^talk 11:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

A tale of two unreliable sources

Reading again the conversations on this talk page and the full article, I see that a lot of the debate centers on whether the Zak study is credible, because it was not peer-reviewed and it raises a hypothesis that differs from the generally-accepted longevity of this lady. Caution: self-published source! But on the other hand, we can trace almost the full extent of Jeanne Calment's story to interviews that she herself gave to doctors and gerontologists after she was already over 110. As her age validators themselves noted, her record is "not exemplary" with one of the top criteria: there is no trace of her celebrating her 100th birthday in 1975. When her case was scrutinized in the 1990s, her family members were long dead (since 1963, three decades earlier), and there was no remaining person alive to have known her in earlier years. Therefore Calment was the only source to most of the story of her life. Caution: primary source! — JFG ^talk 22:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Two unreliable sources, one a Conspiracy theory and the other your speculations. All we have is that reliable sources have verified her lifespan. Until reliable sources actually dispute it, her age should be accepted in this article, with a section on a fringe theory regarding skepticism. If you want to follow the basic principles of Wikipedia, the article should not mention or label as fringe, Zak's conspiracy theory.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Strongly agree with I_am here, Calment's life has been extremely well studied and verified. She is actually fairly rare in this regard, with a continuous record of existence from 1875-1997. A large variety of demographic experts have verified the authenticity of the documents and their applicability to Calment (and not her daughter Yvonne). In addition for Zak's study to be in any way true, Yvonne would have had to have forged a death certificate for herself, not have one person in her fairly small town notice she had swapped herself for her mother, lied accurately every year since 1934 about her age, not have family members who knew about the switch mention it to their other relatives (including Calment's husband, who would have had to put himself out as his daughter's husband for decades!), and then close to 60 years later be able to accurately remember obscure items she wouldn't have personally experienced from her mother's childhood. One feels for the poor man who signed up to pay her mortgage for the rest of her life in 1965, who apparently must have mistaken a woman of 67 for a woman of 90! The level of complication in this scheme is maddening, made even moreso that there is so much documentation about Calment's life. As the document JFG cites "Declaration of the age reached, at age 100 and not at ages above 110: the person must be known to have celebrated her hundredth birthday X years before the declared age of 100 + X. Regarding this point, Jeanne Calment's case is not exemplary since the first articles mentioning the celebration of her birthday date back to 1985, on the occasion of her 110th birthday celebrated at La Maison du Lac (cf. newspaper articles). Fortunately enough, this lack of publicity (of which the authors know the origin) is compensated by the documents of the population census of 1975." So even this relatively minor gap in the records (Calment decided not to publicize her 100th birthday) can still be accounted for with separate records

The Zak study, by contrast, is simply riddled with poor research methodology. Zak, who is by any account not a demographic expert, simply did a series of internet searches to find whatever info he could that suggested issues with Calment's longevity. Seriously, Zak has even confirmed this. His paper was rejected for peer review by two separate journals for shoddy logic and lack of reliable sources, and virtually every expert in the field has rejected the conclusions he reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voteins (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly how we should be thinking about this "theory". I think that it is important to read Zak's paper. One immediately sees that it is not written in any type of scientific format. It is as a series of small inconsistencies (requiring thousands of people to have remained quite), anecdotes, references to unknown people making claims, plausibility arguments, and speculations, all a sine qua non of a conspiracy theory. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't our job as Wikipedians to evaluate or draw any conclusions regarding the quality of Zak's paper or his arguments. Remember, Wikipedia:No original research. You shouldn't go labelling this a "fringe theory" on the basis of your own assessment of its merits. But since you're so keen, I'll oblige. Like the so-called "experts" who "validated" Mme Calment's age, in re-affirming her status you repeatedly and insistently invoke the supporting documentation. But if the Yvonne hypothesis is true, none of that documentation means anything, so by appealing to it you are arguing in a circle by presupposing the falsity of the hypothesis. Like Upton Sinclair said, "It's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it".

I suggest reading Hume's "Of Miracles". Suppose I claim to have witnessed a miraculous event. Which is more likely? That a miraculous event really did occur, even though no miracle has ever reliably been recorded as happening before? Or that I'm lying or hallucinating, things we know happen all the time?

Similarly, if Mme Calment did indeed live to 122 years of age, it would be the only time in history that anyone has ever achieved that feat. On the other hand, we know that tax evasion and identity theft happen all the time. On that basis, which possibility seems more prima facie plausible? Citizen Canine (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Although, as Wikipedians, we must rely on reliable sources, this does not mean that we must check our brain at the door. Zak's article has all the essential elements of a conspiracy theory and none of a scientific paper. The only recent reliable source to assess Zak's paper (Washington Post) concludes it is a conspiracy theory. Probability arguments regarding human age are ridiculous, but to go into detail about why is not appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, as wikipedians we are required to remove the Zak study as in unreliable source. Self published sources are only allowed on wikipedia if they:

1. Are produced by a subject matter expert in the relevant field who has had material previously published in reliable third party publications (Zak is a PHD student in mathematics with no formal training in demography or longevity research, and who has never published a peer reviewed paper in either of those fields)

2. Are not presenting exceptional claims (Zak claims a world famous centenarian was actually lying about her age and identity for over 60 years, and that multiple peer reviewed studies of her history were either falsified or made in error)

3. Do not involve claims about third parties (fairly obvious violation here, Zak never met Calment or even traveled to France)

4. Does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source (again, fairly obvious violation. Zak cannot even make the claim of presenting original research, the study is merely a compilation of preexisting sources already largely rejected by most experts in the field)

5. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (many legitimate subject matter experts have raised complaints about the Zak study's research methodology and the conclusions it draws)

6. The article is not based primarily on such sources (although the article itself is of course based upon many reliable sources, virtually all the "controversy" over Calment's age is sourced from Zak's study or various newspaper articles covering Zak's study)

Thus according to a wide variety of wikipedia rules the Zak study is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this leaves the controversy over Calment's age without a reliable source then that has to be removed too. I personally don't see any way, shape or form around this one. It's not appropriate to include a Russian college student's essay alongside decades of peer reviewed demographic research, even if it was agreeing with them. That it makes a far more exceptional claims than them (a famous supercentenarian was actually lying about her identity for the final 60 years of her life, and that decades of well respected researchers chose to ignore this for some unknown benefit vs a woman managed to live 3 years longer than anyone else we have good records of) Voteins (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)