Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal to split off scepticism section into a separate article about the claimed switch

Davidcpearce wrote Perhaps admin Peaceray could help mend fences. First, I am not an admin. Second, although I have been stepping back from this, since Guinness World Records, Gerontology Research Group, & International Database on Longevity are the authorities on supercentenarians, I feel strongly to try that to dethrone Calment as the world's oldest verified person within Wikipedia would simply be a futile exercise in original research absent a plethora of reliable sources proving otherwise.

As a compromise, I would propose putting a thorough exposition of the skeptical sources & citations into a separate article, perhaps called Skepticism about Jeanne Calment's age. The gist could continue to be summarized in the Jeanne Calment#Skepticism regarding age but would include {{main|Skepticism about Jeanne Calment's age}} (please see {{main}}) at the top of the section to link to the article detailing the skepticism. Peaceray (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion. A specific article on the matter would allow the main article to be kept short, while providing a thorough and referenced overview of the arguments of both skeptics and defendants.

These 3 authorities (Guinness, GRG and IDL) may re-assess their judgement at any time and already did so for Shigechiyo Izumi, who until 2011 was considered the world's oldest man to have lived, until it became evident that the birth certificate used was that of a dead older brother bearing the same name. This is also true for Lucy Hannah, 4th oldest, who was removed last year in 2020.

Sorry to have mistaken you for an admin, you are nevertheless helping. We are 4 people here suggesting a specific article -- I think we can work on it right now, at least as a DRAFT.

I concur with Oleryhlolsson that it should rather be called "Jeanne and Yvonne Calment personality switch theory". Skepticism, on the other hand, is too general: being skeptical is the default position when discussing longevity claims.

Kahlores (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I am happy with the argument for a more specific title. However "personality switch" is the wrong term "identity switch" is more correct and is the one that has always been used. It is also a common misuse of the word "theory". The correct term is "hypothesis" See wikipedia articles on these words. Also in my opinion it is cumbersome and redudant to include Yvonne in the title.

I am adding a separate title for this discussion, hope that is allowed Weburbia (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the suggestion from Weburbia to call it "Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis", my suggestion was merely meant as a 'first draft' and could perhaps be seen a bit to long if it's possible to write the same a bit shorter? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like perfect English to me. Kahlores (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So let's get to work! → Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis

Perhaps a few guidelines are needed. Wikipedia:Controversial articles, for instance. Kahlores (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't say that I have a deeper knowledge about this hypothesis and how it has evolved and been received but as for the article a chapter about Media coverage and/or Reception would seem to be a natural thing to have in an article Like this? Oleryhlolsson (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Since it all started via non-institutional means, the media coverage should be mentioned right at the beginning. It is via his Medium article that went viral, that Deigin re-launched the hypothesis, while Zak hard difficulties getting published. On the other hand, do we have enough material to have a section on media itself? We could even have . . . two. One would explain Zak and Deigin's first batch of publications chronologically, and another one would describe those who saw this as some kind of Russian campaign (Rosenberg's W.P. article, Robine and Young), although "evidence for this is thin" (Guardian). Kahlores (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Would it be best to copy over what is already here, adding a short lede and leaving a summary and link in this article? Then anyone interested can work on correcting and reorganising it from there. Weburbia (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the intent of the draft page, starting from the current version, enhancing it until we agree on a version that becomes an article. Don't hesitate to suggest a summary for the main article if you think you can do that. I'll focus on the special article. Kahlores (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft page appears as a red link now. Have you moved it to another title? — JFG ^talk 12:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No it had not been created yet, lest it be a lone enterprise. Since you are here, I'm getting started. Kahlores (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Don’t know if this page went ahead. Usually Wikipedia articles are titled by the search people are most likely to use so that it is easy to find your page. So think about that when naming and you might want to leave out the term hypothesis as not in common use. Also, the more general the area a new article covers the better the chance of a variety of well sourced references This improves the chances of the new page not being immediately deleted as having too few references. Also the more general the topic the better your chances of it not being deleted for lack of notability. A definite possibility with a page that basically summarises a recently published article... however accurate or relevant the contents might be. As someone totally unfamiliar with this area, what made me most interested was the reference to so many people’s status as oldest men/women being revoked when they were revealed to be based on deception. I’d love to see a page on Oldest Person controversies (Wikipedia already has a few articles and sections of articles) on controversies so that fits with a potential naming convention that may ease the article through the potential challenges to its existence. Or Eldest People Hoaxes? Challenges to eldest person status? Any of them could allow full exploration of the current discussion whilst giving those unfamiliar an explanation of the context and therefore why the challenge to this woman’s status should be taken seriously if linked to from this page. Good luck with your article. And if you lost the original draft try building it in the sandbox on someone’s personal page. Drafts are only left up a few days. Dakinijones (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The draft is being worked on at Draft:Jeanne Calment identity switch hypothesis. Comments can also be left on its talk page. If "hypothesis" is not a good word I suggest "claim" or "controversy" or "affair" as alternatives. I dont think notability is an issue as the matter was covered extensively in both scientific journals and multiple international news media reports as referenced. Existing pages similar to your "oldest person controversies" would be longevity claims and longevity myths. Weburbia (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Skepticism Bias

The skepticism section is now completely biased against any claims that Calment might actually be a hoax.

The idea that it was her daughter posing as her is well addressed in the February 2020 New Yorker article. In addition to highlighting several highly improbable facts about her life which she seems to have embellished or lied about the article shows that on more than one occasion, Calment accidentally refers to her husband as her father which lends credence to the idea that this is in fact Calment’s daughter who can’t keep her story straight as she gets older.

Documents are of the utmost importance in dealing with longevity age verification yet the article still includes the line that “reportedly on Calment's instructions, her documents and family photographs were selectively burned by a distant family member, Josette Bigonnet, a cousin of her grandson.” This alone should be cause to question her claims.

I agree that this section needs to be thoroughly rewritten to lay out the claims so that readers have the ability to come to their own conclusions.

Remember...people believed for 70 years that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess Anastasia until DNA testing put an end to that theory once and for all. However sharp observers note that the theory of who Anderson was happened as early as 1922. All the researchers, scholars and authors who claimed that she was Anastasia ended up with egg on their faces and a bunch of now-worthless books and articles so there is a clear reason why hiding this kind if information is important to Calment supporters.

No, Wikipedia need not have to show both sides of an issue, but it also shouldn’t be used to stifle contrary or competing viewpoints, especially if new analysis comes to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.175.5.118 (talk) 00:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The controversy about the identity switch hypothesis is widely documented in the article already. If you have things to add, please make specific well-sourced suggestions here. — JFG ^talk 16:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The New Yorker Article is a roughly 20 page piece, including extensive interviews, including with most of the people casting doubt on her age, that also highlights dozens of new, incredibly convincing verification, concluding that the idea of switch is improbable and disproved. The idea you are citing it as evidence that Calment's age was faked and there was a switch, is a highly selective or incomplete reading of the journalistic account, which brings up evidence of Yvonne's time in a sanitorium, as well as the fact that Yvonne would have needed to bribe two notaries and a priest. The New Yorker article literally concludes "How many people would Yvonne have had to co-opt? Two notaries, a priest, a seven-year-old boy, a crowd full of mourners, a whole city? The theory made no sense, and, even though I knew it, I was already thinking about what Zak would say next." 116.199.190.76 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jeanne/Yvonne loved the attention conferred by her officially recognised status as World’s Oldest Person. So what motivated the selective burning of her family photographs and other documentary evidence – allegedly on her instructions, aged 120 – by a cousin of her grandson/son when she was requested to bequeath them to the archives of Arles? If a Russian claimant (or their heir) had done something similar, we'd say the case was obviously bogus. Nikolay Zak has also cast a sceptical eye over the Sarah Knauss case. But here (IMO) the evidence looks much more sold. Everything fits.--Davidcpearce (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. That highly convenient destruction of evidence (on Calment's orders, by the woman who would inherit her money!) is a crucial fact; if that had not happened, this controversy would not be ongoing. It doesn't prove that Jeanne was actually Yvonne, but the fact that certain people choose not to regard it even as suspicious is clearly motivated by a massive bias.

Having said that, the article in fairness does include the fact that this evidence was destroyed. Other photographs of her - such as would surely exist from her son/grandson's wedding - have not been made public and it seems unlikely that they will, given the recent death of her daughter-/granddaughter-in-law who did not respond to the controversy.

Calment's true identity is there; in the blood sample that remains in storage, as mentioned I believe in the New Yorker article. All that remains is the will to test it to determine whether the donor had consanguine lineage (Yvonne) or not (Jeanne). The issue of DNA testing was in the article, but got taken out. I don't know why, because it's a perfectly valid point about resolving the controversy with scientific evidence.

'This theory, however, is considered weak by mainstream longevity experts such as French gerontologist Jean-Marie Robine.' Well I'd imagine he would say that: he's the one who verified her. 82.9.225.35 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a DNA/blood test shall be done before eventual criticism against Nikolay Zak's hypothesis. A test may prove if the person who died in 1997 at the claimed age of 122 really was Jeanne herself, or her daughter Yvonne who is claimed to have died young of pneumonia but actually usurped her deceased mother's identity and claimed to be her own mother. Before the DNA/blood test, Jeanne Calment should be considered as disputed, as there must be evidence that she really was 122 years old, the so called evidence Guinness claims to have now is not enough. 213.65.211.63 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is not just the question of daughter or not but the outlier. For instance, right now the oldest person alive is another french at age 118. So 122 is not out of the question but a bit strange as such a fairly early outlier. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom Kirkwood

I learned that Jeanne Calment's claimed age was disputed already in late-1990s by some gerontologist, I think it was Tom Kirkwood, who started questioning how Mrs Calment could live to that great age and if tthere wasn't any possibility that Jeanne was confused with her daughter Yvonne due to an eventual identity switch.

I think France should be required to do a DNA/blood test as Nikolay Zak suppose, in order to prove if the person who died in 1997 really was Jeanne herself or her daughter Yvonne who is claimed to have died young of pneumonia but actually may have switched identity with her mother who may have died of pneumonia. If Yvonne claimed to be her own mother and 122 years old in 1997, she would only have been 99 years old - and the oldest person in history would have been Sarah knauss. 213.65.211.63 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

France should be required by whom?? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr. 213.65.211.63 who seems to bear a Swedish IP family name, should perhaps create an account on Wikipedia to protect his digital identity.

I didn't know about Tom Kirkwood. Naturally... you need a source!

I suppose, jpgordon, that he meant that the French justice system should conduct a DNA test as part of an investigation, however, I seems it can only be done with the agreement of the remaining members of the extended family, who have refused. Kahlores (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be a matter for a judge to decide, if someone were to bring a convincing legal case. Any family left are distant relatives. The nearest blood relatives would be about third or fourth cousins. A judge may listen to their representations but they certainly don't get a veto. Weburbia (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Zak and Philip Gibbs article

Is that Philip Gibbs the same one who setup viXra? Hard to tell because that seems to be a common name. I wanted to link to vixra but not sure if it's relevant.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip-Gibbs-2 Idk how these are verified Wqwt (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

That appears to be the same one. He appears to write quite a bit on math & physics. He may be an expert in probability, but I do not know if that has much to say about the longevity of Jeanne Calment beyond commenting on the improbability. Perhaps we should treat his authority on longevity validation similar to Linus Pauling advocacy of vitamin C. We should not give it any more undue attention until someone else has supporting information. Peaceray (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Why then does the article give so much weight to the opinions of François Robin-Champigneul who has no recognised expertise in statistical methods? Weburbia (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing the infobox image for Calment

I think the infobox image to File:Jeanne-Calment-1997.jpg to demonstrate her in her later life. Let me know what you think of that image. Interstellarity (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Peaceray:, the editor who reverted the image for thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I think that the current image is the best for clearly seeing Calment's face. At her 121st birthday, it well represents her in later life.

Second, I think that File:Jeanne-Calment-1997.jpg would be good to include elsewhere in the file, except that it is a non-free file, & I do not think that we can justify two non-free file in the article.

As for why Jeanne-Calment-1997.jpg is inappropriate for the infobox

1. Her eyes are obscured
2. Her appearance only occurs in half the image
3. It is of lesser quality than Jeanne-Calment-1996.jpg

Also, there is WP:EDITCONSENSUS for the current photograph. Granted, this may be because there was no alternative available, but I think it is the better photo for representing Calment towards the end of her life. Peaceray (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

current one is better imo FMSky (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The current image should be used per Peaceray. Peter Ormond 💬 16:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Extremely sexy (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)