Jump to content

Talk:Jeanne Calment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tillusee (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 26 December 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Template:Vital article

Jeanne vs Yvonne

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

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

Man, this will really put the cat among the pigeons. EEng 19:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well well well that is pretty convincing stuff. 99 years old is much more believable. Avoiding a bunch of taxes and gaining a life annuity are pretty good reasons to pull a switch. She would not have guessed she would live to 99 which extend her fake age so far out. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ignoto2: The gerontologist and statistician who looked at the data were suspicious of Calment's extremely outlying age of 122, whereas the next 42 oldest women ever died between 115 and 117, except one at 119. They noticed that Calment's only daughter, Yvonne, died of pneumonia at a young age, and Jeanne kept on living in the same household as Yvonne's husband, who never remarried, and raised their child (who was 8 upon his mother's purported death). The alleged story is that Jeanne died of pneumonia in 1934 (aged 59) and that Yvonne and her husband conspired to declare Yvonne dead instead of Jeanne, so they would not have to pay estate taxes. That scenario would be compatible with the "perfect track record" of various administrative proofs of Jeanne's age across decades,[1] because the identity substitution would have been invisible to census officers and the like.
To answer your question directly, the person who died in 1997 would have been Yvonne, aged 99, pretending to be 122. That would also explain a lot of the anomalies in this person's capabilities and living conditions, compared to numerous other documented old ladies: living on her own from 88 to 110, walking without a stick until 114, outliving her blood relatives by three decades (father died 93 years, mother 86, brother 97), neurophysiological tests at 118 demonstrating "verbal memory and language fluency comparable to that of persons with the same level of education in their eighties and nineties." Of course, if she was really just 95 at the time, these results would raise no eyebrows.
If this research is confirmed, that would indeed be quite a bombshell. Damn Russians! Where's Mueller when we need him? — JFG talk 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's highly improbable she lived to 122. Identity theft makes so much more sense - motive, oppotunity, means. I searched for more sources but this is the only one, posted yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they can dig up the grandson-who-might-be-a-son and get some DNA, that will easily settle it. But let's just let this sit for now. EEng 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Given the recent piece of info...

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

We probably should not until the allegations are more than allegations. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "true believers" are not convinced yet [2] one person is claiming one of the researchers has been banned from the forum. This research is not going to be popular as one person said essentially "if you toss out her claim you have to toss out every claim above 110" Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, even if it was actually Yvonne, officially it was still Jeanne. We would treat Jeanne Calment as the notable alter ego of an otherwise unknown Yvonne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But we would have to update the info as "Jeanne Calment, born Yvonne Calment..." Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, all of this would be unprecedented, methinks. Instead of moving the article, we would be changing its scope/subject. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And we would have to title the article to make sure it matches the actual subject. Georgia guy (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the subject would still be Jeanne Calment. A different Jeanne Calment perhaps, but unless reliable sources suddenly start referring to her as Yvonne, Jeanne Calment would remain the common name. Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We will not need to change the page name, only update the content. Legacypac (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Exactly. Let's spend no further time on this until there's more -- way more. It's a tantalizing theory but for now it's just that -- tantalizing and a theory. Maybe too tantalizing. EEng 00:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The french insurance book quoted would be a good RS as well. I expect this will get some traction in other RS in time. Legacypac (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/
@ElenaMilova: Thank you for pointing out this important nuance. The article has been updated accordingly. — JFG talk 12:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also corrected the phrasing in other articles where the study is mentioned: List of French supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians by continent, Oldest people, and List of the verified oldest people. — JFG talk 12:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite that Jeanne was not the oldest person ever?

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

I'm waiting to see how this study gains traction. So far we have just one source and in there a ref to an insurance book as a second source. If you have more sources post them please. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't resist adding that https://www DOT google.com/amp/s/the110club.com/viewtopic.php%3ft=3663&amp=1 shows what goofball amateurs these longevity fans are. EEng 10:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get that link to work even with replacing the dot, but I did find they banned the member that brought tried to discuss the new article suggesting she was not 122. [4] Not much science amd a whole lot of fan club over there. Legacypac (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following the link asks for a login now. I think the first time I got in via some other path. Anyway, try googling Jeanne Calment fraud and if you see a header partway down reading "Did Jeanne Calment really reach 122? - The 110 Club" try that. They keep saying over and over how there's a birth record and baptismal record and identity papers throughout the years, which has nothing to do with the actual question: is this the same person? EEng 12:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to help build Draft:Verification of supercentenarians. — JFG talk 16:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

"strickly a typo", huh? You're a sly one, Legacypac. EEng 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the restoration. This hypothesis is not presented as fact, and is now supported by several sources It is not a wacko theory: it's plausible on its face. As encyclopedists, we are not in the business of deciding the truth of any fact, only to duly report credible hypotheses as such (see WP:VNT). We are not giving undue weight to this hypothesis, by isolating it to a single 4-line section. A brief mention in the lede is in my opinion warranted, due to the potential impact of the alternative story. All in all, the article looks well-balanced given the current state of knowledge and sources. — JFG talk 13:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Yvonne

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

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

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

I made a first edit to correct the record.[9] Feel free to improve. — JFG talk 14:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I undid your edit here as the source is not reliable. Medium is a website that anyone can join to publish writings and documents. The author "Yuri Deigin" simply states that he is an editor over at Open Longevity (English and Russian sites). The question would then be is this a reliable website? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is just a publishing platform like any other. The author provides a scanned page from Jeanne's biography that clearly attributes the photo in question to her daughter Yvonne. Is Jeanne's biography a reliable enough source for you? --TrueGentleman99 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the published biography book is good enough for me. The image has been mislabeled for years. This is an important piece for understanding the subject and her daughter (or is the subject the daughter). I've undone the series of edits that removed the image and questioned the source. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree both that a better source is needed and that hiding the image was excessive. The biography titled Jeanne: la passion de vivre is probably good enough, and JFG did already suggest we cite it directly, rather than citing a secondary source that draws upon it. However, contrary to what Legacypac asserted in his edit summary, the work is not an autobiography. It is credited to "Gabriel Simonoff, with a preface by Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff". Citizen Canine (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stupidly typed "auto", realized it right away, but can't change the edit summary. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This attributes nothing as he is comparing two pictures. The author is not vetted in the field by any third party, provide a third party source on the matter and you have a better case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The book it is scanned from is a third party source - you reverted me even though you have no support in this discussion. The benefit of the linked source is anyone can easily see the scanned page with a click while the underlying book is hard to obtain. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a backup source on how the author reached his conclusion.... Deigin used a book he scanned from a third party source yes... but this still doesn't tell how Yuri Deigin is vetted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vetting of that source is not relevant we know that the photo isa of the daughter. The book shows it and here is another source http://www.grg.org/JCalmentGallery.htm Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with that source, why don't you restore the picture with the caption "Daughter Yvonne"? The bit about that picture being "long misidentified as showing Jeanne at 22 years old" is a conclusion reached by that questionable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that it is verifiably a picture of Yvonne. Then it follows that it was "long misidentified as showing Jeanne at 22 years old", given that it was so labeled both here on Wikipedia from its inclusion until a few days ago, and by the GRG. That's hardly improper synthesis. Citizen Canine (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't follow that....you are adding that narrative in based on the biased source. The GNG source simply says "daughter Yvonne", it says nothing about the picture being "long misidentified". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editing history of the picture and caption, both sourced to GRG, proves that the picture was long mislabeled. Of course it's hard to convey this information without quoting the article that first raised attention about this serious editorial mistake. No inference is made in our text about which of the two young women pictured most looks like the old woman who died in 1997; we should just document the proper labeling of Yvonne's picture, which can be adequately cited to the Simonoff biography first published in 1995. — JFG talk 15:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion interlude

Charwoman?
Charwoman

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

[10] Explains how this photo helps prove there was a switch. It's a dress up event that only makes sense if the daughter is pictured. Also comparing the photo of the daughter to the mother it sure looks like the daughter is the same woman who was supposed to live to 122. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed the joke. EEng 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed and I still don't get it. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just that this is apparently some traditional festive outfit, but every time I saw it over the years I thought, "Well, I guess she's dressed for doing the spring cleaning, scrubbing the floors, and so on." EEng 05:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added this info to the French version of this article. Interestingly the issue was already raised on the talk page there over 2 years ago by User:Hbourj. Citizen Canine (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The French Wikipedia discusses the issue of Yvonne being dressed as a charwoman? Wow, those French are really fashion-conscious! EEng 16:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry I got confused as there are two sections here with the same title. I meant a French user forwarded this same fraud hypothesis back in 2016, when it was dismissed as original research as he didn't cite any secondary sources. Just saying it's curious. The French Wikipedia has that same image of Yvonne, which was mistakenly labeled as Jeanne until I corrected it yesterday. And yes, I get that you're being tongue-in-cheek. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My tongue's so firmly in cheek that surgical removal has been recommended. EEng 02:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you are joking about this woman when she could have living family members out there is distasteful at the best. None of this has so far been proven true so I have no idea why we as editors here are making our own conclusions by comparing pictures. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, get a grip. And if you knew anything at all about the subject, you'd know she definitively has no living relatives, as if that mattered. I have nothing to do with any comparing of pictures except for this stress-relieving interlude on an irrelevant point. And I've been the one explaining (in another thread on this page) that it's not our job to make comparisons to decide who's who in the pictures. On the other hand, something doesn't have to be "proven true" for us to report it as a hypothesis. EEng 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi YHL532. I think the image hbourj is referring to is this one. It is unfortunately the only such image which has survived to the destruction of the family records on "Jeanne"'s orders. It is included in the Medium article [11]. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I don't know. He didn't say where he saw the original photo. It could be he somehow has privileged access to it. More likely though it is in one of the print sources and simply hasn't been made available online, at least not anywhere that's highly visible. Citizen Canine (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several places I've read that the old lady had family records destroyed. Very strange behaviour for someone with nothing to hide. The height and eye color are another smoking gun. I'm not convinced eye color fades and changes with age, or that some women don't get shorter with extreme age. At some point we will need to decide when the weight of evidence on one side outweighs the weight of evidence on older sources. Legacypac (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, we won't decide when the weight of the evidence on one side outweighs [etc etc]. We will wait to see what new reliable sources say, and it will be a long time before they take a definite stand. In the meantime, we can only report this as (at first) a new hypothesis, then (maybe for an intermediate period) as a controversy, and then (eventually) as a decided point one way or another. But that last stage will likely (and I'm not kidding about this) only come 10 to 20 years from now, because that's how long it takes for considered published opinion to become settled on something like this.
For a very similar situation that took about 18 years to resolve, see Talk:Eubie_Blake#Blake's_Correct_Birth_Year_-_1883_-_is_Provided_by_Blake_Himself_on_"The_Tonight_Show_with_Johnny_Carson". In brief, for much of his life pioneering jazzist Eubie Blake said he was born in 1883; he died in 1983 at "100 years old". About 2000 evidence began to emerge that he had actually been born in 1887, and this evidence became stronger over the next few years. But it took a further ten years for authoritative sources to publish new papers, issue revised editions, and so on so that we (Wikipedia) could simply state the 1887 date as fact, not controversy. That's probably the kind of time it will take in this case as well – though at this point we don't know in which direction the chips will eventually fall, of course. EEng 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should not take 18 years to solve this. Age was not the defining characteristic in the Blake case where here it is the only part of her life that is notable. Legacypac (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it shouldn't take 18 years, but it may very well. We can't control how fast sources get to work on this. EEng 06:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory

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

  • The post is based on attacking one of the sources, claiming it is the only source. Please read the rest of the threads on this page before starting at fringe theories with a false premise. The source you attacked is not even the first source - we have a presentation in Russian, an insurance book, and the source discussed at hTalk:Jeanne_Calment#Jeanne_vs_Yvonne which was the first article to come to Wikipedia attention. If anything is fringe it is that Clement lived 122+ years, so much longer than anyone else on record.
1. https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/
2. “L’assurance et ses secrets” (Insurance and its secrets) by Jean-Pierre Daniel a book published in 2007.
“Chacun se souvient de Jeanne Calment officiellement morte à 122 ans, le 4 août 1997, Il avait été dit à l’époque que cette dame bénéficiait d’une rente viagère, ce qui etait vrai. Celle-ci etait versée par une grande société française que cette longévité exceptionelle ne réjouissait pas. La société était d’autant plus marrie qu’elle savait pertinemment qu’elle ne payait pas Jeanne Calment, mais sa fille. En effect, au décès de la vraie Jeanne Calment, sa fille qui évidemment n’était plus une gamine, avait endossé l’identité de sa mère pour continuer à toucher la rente. La société d’assurance avait découvert l’usurpation d’identité, mais en accord – ou à la demande ? – des pouvoirs publics, elle n’avait pas souhaité la dénoncer tant le personnage de la “doyenne des Français” était devenu mythique.” translated to
“Everyone remembers Jeanne Calment, who has officially died at age 122 on August 4, 1997. It was said at the time that this lady had benefited from having a life annuity, which was true. This was paid by a large French company that was not happy at all with this exceptional longevity. The company was even more upset as it knew that it had been paying not Jeanne Calment, but her daughter. In reality, after the death of the real Jeanne Calment, her daughter who obviously was no longer a child, had taken her mother’s identity to keep receiving the annuity. The insurance company had discovered identity theft, but in agreement with – or on the demand of? – the public authorities, it had not wished to reveal the truth, given how much the character of the “grandmother of the French” had become legendary.”
3. Medium article [12]
4. The presentation in Russian from the researcher and the statistician
Also look at the graph here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-oldest-person-in-the-world-keeps-dying/ Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edit Warring

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

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

  • I'm a bit tired of drive-by warnings prompted by uninvolved, uninformed buttinskis who push the panic button [14] without knowing what's going on. I received thanks from all three other editors involved [15] [16] [17] and everyone's perfectly happy -- see [18]. Where participants in a series of edits are all experienced editors, an editwarring report request for page protection should come from one or more of them -- people actually involved who understand what's going on -- to avoid wastes of time like this. EEng 02:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: Experienced editors who have served multiple blocks for edit-warring ought to know what an edit-warring report is, and isn't. No one has filed an edit-warring report, all that was done was requesting temporary full protection at RFPP to help the experienced editors stay out of harm's way, and not get themselves blocked, again. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 07:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, RPP not 3RR report – the point's the same; you're not helping yourself here. I get the block log thing so frequently from your type that I have a bit of a canned response for it: You obviously missed the userbox at the top of my user page...
This user has been blocked several times, and isn't embarrassed about it - (admire my block log here!).
... not to mention such threads as "Hands-down the worst block I've seen in my time on Wikipedia, and I've seen some whoppers", this comment from a wise and respected arb [19] and so on. I leave all my blocks on my user and talk pages so all may judge for themselves.
There was a dispute between two editors (not me) over an UNDUE tag, but then I stepped in and made a series of edits that satisfied everyone, and on which the others built. You'd know that if you took the trouble to review the diffs. Next time, either take the time or don't butt in. EEng 08:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that you not only don't know what an edit-warring report is, but also don't know what edit-warring is (hint: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."). You made four reverts (by the definition in the quote) in less than 24h, and thus violated 3RR, so you owe me a thanks for helping you avoid a block that you might have had problems squirming out of... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Tom, go have a Merry Christmas that does not involve insulting the intelligence or editing skills of EEng Legacypac (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<rolls eyes> You're making a fool of yourself. When the other editors involved all thank you for your edits, then build on those edits by making additions and adjustments of their own, it's not editwarring. Please, in future leave the evaluation of article editing patterns to those who actually edit articles. You seem determined to find trouble where there's none. You probably should also read WP:Reverting to gain a more nuanced idea of what a revert is. EEng 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. I know what counts as a revert per 3RR, which is what matters, but thanks for showing me that you're a person of many talents, not only making totally obnoxious "joke" edits on notice boards, and edit-warring to keep them there, even in archives, but also acting as a total jerk against other editors on article talk pages... <plonk> - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Temper, temper! EEng 16:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has always been a contentious topic area. No need to drag unrelated issues into make it worse, there's nothing here that can't be worked out. It never ceases to amaze me how this subject manages to do this to people. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W clearly there is no reasoning with editor's such as Legacypac who's narcissist mentality does not allow them to be civil or appreciate of others inputs. Talking down to others is all they know.Icanseebob (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Better video re van Gogh

Can someone who understands that language spoken by French people in France tell us if this [20] video has the her unflattering comments on van Gogh? If so we should use it in the article instead of the youtube link there now. EEng 03:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the video, she describes van Gogh as ugly, alcoholic and how meeting him turned out to be a big disappointment. No mention of visiting brothels though. --McSly (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So, is this a different interview from the one in the Youtube vid now linked in the article? EEng 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, different interviews done a few years apart (1989 for INA and 1994 for the one on Youtube). --McSly (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made this edit [21]; turns out this vid was already used in the article. EEng 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeanne_Calment&oldid=875376028"