Talk:Jeanne Calment

Unclear footnote

Since November 2025, there is a ^[who?] tag, added in Special:Diff/1322437830 by PK2, that should be easy enough to resolve: The "Russian researchers" in footnote 1 need to be identified. Are these the same Russian researchers (Novoselov and Zak) who are discussed in the rest of the section? Renerpho (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I have nominated File:Yvonne Calment.jpg for deletion, due to a possible copyright violation. I presume the question of the unclear footnote is moot if the file is deleted. Renerpho (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Yvonne Calment.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

"Jeannecalment" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jeannecalment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 May 19 § Alanturing until a consensus is reached. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:50, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The word Albeit

Can not be used with a full sentence following. Should be changed to “although” example I was going down the highway, albeit slowly . ~2026-31285-17 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand. Your example seems to be in accord with modern usages. See :wiktionary:albeit § Usage notes. Isn't albeit slowly an adverbial phrase,? Peaceray (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Disgraceful Article

This article is a disgrace--the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The overwhelming consensus among experts in the field of longevity research is that Calment's age has--even without DNA testing--been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and this should be reflected in the article. Not the ridiculous Trumpian "both-sidedness" currently employed. "There have been various speculations on the authenticity of her age"?!?! Are you kidding me??? The fact that some people "dispute" something doesn't mean that the thing is in serious question. There are people who "dispute" that the Holocaust took place or that the Moon landings occurred. Yet Wikipedia rightly treats neither of these things as being in doubt. Instead, it provides information about Holocaust denial and Moon landing conspiracy theories--and this is how the so-called "identity switch theory" should be handled. It's not Wikipedia's job to peddle fringe ideas as though they're just as legitimate and respectable as an overwhelming consensus supported by mountains of evidence. Jjuoop (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think the "identity switch" hypothesis is explained to be discredited in the article? eg. the article includes "This hypothesis is considered weak by mainstream longevity experts, such as French gerontologist Jean-Marie Robine,[27] who pointed out that during his research, Calment had correctly answered questions about things that her daughter could not have known first-hand.[28][29] Robine also dismissed the idea that the residents of Arles could have been duped by the switch", and then later "After consulting several experts, The Washington Post wrote that "statistically improbable is not the same thing as statistically impossible", that Novoselov and Zak's claims have been dismissed by the overwhelming majority of experts, and that those claims are "lacking, if not outright deficient".[30] In September 2019, several French scientists released a paper in The Journals of Gerontology pointing out inaccuracies in the Zak et al. paper.[31]", with further info about why the idea is unlikely elsewhere. Personally I think the article feels accurate and not trying to create false balance. The claims of identity switch are described (as the should be - readers should know about the existance of the identity-swap proposal), but while also explaining that it's widely discredited and not taken seriously. What specifically do you think should change? BugGhost 🦗👻 06:00, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The language used by the article itself effectively says that Calment's age continues to be in serious question--particularly the "There have been various speculations about the authenticity of her age" sentence and that "the question of identity could easily be settled" if a DNA test was done (the latter coming at the end of the relevant section). The issue also occupies a huge portion of the total article, further reinforcing the notion that Zak's scenario is a serious possibility. I would instead have a few sentences about it--stating what Zak and others claimed (note my language here--making a claim doesn't necessarily mean there's a serious chance the claim is true) and that by scientific consensus it has been discredited. I would put most of the current material on the issue into a separate article, with a link to it called "Jeanne Calment age theory" or some other similar title (It should be noted that there's a separate article for Moon landing conspiracy theories). But even in the spin-off article I'm suggesting, I would definitely get rid of the sentences I mentioned above. Jjuoop (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Concerning Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Due and undue weight, do you have some suggestions as how to reword it so it is has due, & not undue, weight? Such as what wording should be used exactly? Peaceray (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I would get rid of the two sentences I mentioned. I would make the section about Zak's claim much smaller, and begin it with something like: "In 2019, Russian mathematician Nikolay Zak claimed..." After his claim has been described, I would say something like: "This claim, however, has been overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream longevity experts." I would make sure that any sort of language which itself implies a "Gee, who knows if Calment really lived to be 122 or not?" is avoided, as it is inappropriate given the evidence and the scientific consensus.

Additionally, the second of the two sentences I signaled out for removal--the one saying that the issue could be "settled" with a DNA test--doesn't just ignore the fact that the scientific consensus is that it has already been satisfactorily settled even without such a test, it also doesn't confront the question: what if such a test was done and Zak claimed it was rigged--like Trump with the 2020 election? Jjuoop (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2026 (UTC)