Talk:Jeanne Calment

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

Another source dealing with the alleged fraud

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

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.

Rejuvenation Research refs

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

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

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

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

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

New Zak "Bayesian" news article.

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

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

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

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

Does anyone have anything that disproves the following statement:

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

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

References

Edits to section on Skepticism regarding age

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello to all the new faces,

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

It definitely meets WP:DUE WEIGHT, as

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

Now let me respond to DeadMary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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