Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 2

Fashion interlude


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


 * 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)
 * You seem to have missed the joke. EEng 04:08, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed and I still don't get it. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * My tongue's so firmly in cheek that surgical removal has been recommended. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"Fraud hypothesis" sub-heading
Knowledgekid87 please stop these kinds of edits. Not helpful. There are not dozens of studies confirming this ladies extreme age. Legacypac (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The Van Gogh story was used to "prove" her extreme age but part of proving extreme age is checking the reasonableness of the timing of life events and memories. The Van Gogh story falls apart when you run the math and fact check against who ran the store. Stories that don't make sense tend to be lies. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Again this is more WP:OR, look at the sources throughout the article that has her as 122, are we to discredit every single one of those? Your edits are unhelpful as you are trying to make this hypothesis as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not confuse edits to the article and conversation on the talk page. — JFG talk 03:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The conversation here has provided no need for a header, this is about keeping with a WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This thread is talking about two interviews of Jeanne Calment. If you'd like to discuss the "Fraud hypothesis" heading that you want to remove, please open a separate thread. — JFG talk 03:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Then what the heck is talking about?  - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I see now that Legacypac started talking about something else. I have added a talk thread header accordingly. Now we can discuss the videos up there and the sub-heading down here. — JFG talk 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough....seeing that the record is being disputed the information should be combined with "Recognition and registration as record-breaker". I know readers who are interested with this hypothesis will have no problem finding it there and it would go with a WP:NPOV as the section provides both angles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I prefer one section for the fraud theory and another for the verification. Make it easy to find. There is going to be no additional sources about her life or age "verification" - everything new is going to go in the new section until (maybe) enough evidence causes us to rewrite the page saying she was not 122. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Everything new? We aren't a crystal ball the fact remains that this is a hypothesis and nothing more. Keeping it separate causes undue weight to the article as promoting this hypothesis as fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why? The section header and the content clearly state accurately what is the sources say. Those sources are as much fact as the ones that say she lived 122 years. Legacypac (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

You KnowledgeKid87 are continuing to edit against consensus. Revert please.

Since whatever her name is died years ago she can't do more things to report. Therefore it is almost certain the only new info will be about problems with verification. That is not CRYSTAL it is common sense. Legacypac (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? We are an encyclopedia here, this isn't a place to soapbox. If it's proven then okay, right now though we must present the information just as we would for any other article that has disputed info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Im going to get some rest now, I will leave this for other editors to weigh in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The disputed tag is misleading. There is nothing disputed about the fact the sources for this section dispute the rest of the article content. Legacypac (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The purpose of section headers is give the reader an overview of what's in the article, and prepare him/her for what's coming next (if reading top to bottom) or where to find something specific (if jumping in). The fraud hypothesis is separate and distinct from everything else in the article, and many readers will come looking for it; it's appropriate for it to have its own little section. (There's no minimum size for a section.) I would omit This scenario would explain the statistically unlikely difference of several years between Calment's claimed age and the next dozens of oldest persons ever recorded – readers not mentally defective will understand the implications of the hypothesis. The undue section banner is absurd, but if you want to draw additional attention to what should be a minor part of the article, it certainly does that job well. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The quoted wording was my attempt to summarize the statistical portion of the one source. Legacypac (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but (not your fault) it doesn't do a very good job of it, and I don't think a good job can be done in one sentence, because one sentence can only state the obvious, and the reader doesn't need the obvious i.e. that the hypothesis quite neatly explains why the oldest person ever was so much older than anyone else, to wit, she wasn't. I really think we should drop the sentence. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The source covers two main thrusts - that documentry evidence suggests identity assumption and seperately that a study of math models suggests the claim is statistically extremely unlikely. Somehow we should hit both points. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Legacypac is correct here. It's indeed trivial for readers to ascertain that a 99-year-old wouldn't be the oldest person, but it's not obvious that the age gap of several years with other recordholders is a gross statistical anomaly. Because the author of the hypothesis is a professional statistician, I believe it is DUE to mention that this hypothesis explains away the statistical issue. Certainly the sentence can be improved. — JFG talk 06:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very much a back-of-the-envelope calculation (with many potential holes), and a minor part of the paper's argument. But I'm not going to fuss about it. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favour of leaving the sentence out, partly because it is qualified in the paper partly because random scatter becomes an issue with the sample sizes discussed here. Otherwise, I'd say that the article in its present state properly represents the available sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the sample size not Billions of people? Even thousands of people over 110 is a reasonable sample size to look at an outlier like 122. Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Problem is that we can't really tell whether one person reaching their 122 birthday is "statistically unlikely" as random scatter happens; compare the Ecological fallacy. There is apparently controversy on how to construct a statistic for extreme longevity and whether to extrapolate from it, so I would not accept any statement like "It's statistically extremely unlikely that someone lives to their 122 birthday" without a lot more collaboration in sources, such as a WP:MEDRS compliant meta review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant above about envelopes and holes. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 17:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing...
FWIW I'm pretty happy with the article's current revision: 1) the fraud hypothesis is described as a hypothesis and not as a recognized fact; 2) the hypothesis is mentioned in the lede and described in a bit more detail in a named subsection; 3) there are no stupid maintenance templates over the lede or subsection since the status of the hypothesis is clear enough for readers to evaluate for themselves; 4) the total amount of space to the hypothesis in the context of the larger article is about right per wp:weight in my estimation. A slight content improvement could probably be made in the subsection, to explain that Yvonne's husband would have been party to the fraud, but that's a refinement. I have also found the talkpage info about Van Gogh etc. to be worthwhile discussion towards developing the article. On looking over the talk page it seems to me that Knowledgekid87 is editing tendentiously and I'd ask him/her to tone it down. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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


 * 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 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
 * 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)

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)
 * The idea that this is FRINGE is ridiculous. It's a perfectly sensible hypothesis. Give it up. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've left an edit warring caution for Knowledgekid87. since they insist on modifying the agreed to caption on the Yvonne photo. Legacypac (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been 2 reverts, and there was no decided upon caption for the picture. This was already discussed at Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I have to turn the hose on you two? (For the record Kk87, it can still be edit warring even if you don't pass 3RR.) I hope my recent edits are satisfactory to everyone; I wouldn't want anyone's longevity cut short by violence. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

 * I'm a bit tired of drive-by warnings prompted by uninvolved, uninformed buttinskis who push the panic button without knowing what's going on. I received thanks from all three other editors involved    and everyone's perfectly happy -- see . 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; Thomas.W talk 07:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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...

<div style="float:; border:px solid ; margin:1px;">
 * ... 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 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 08:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 &#124; Thomas.W talk 08:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * (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)
 * 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 09:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 10:08, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Temper, temper! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Thomas.W


 * This is a paradigm of a fringe theory. Has anyone actually read this unpublished garbage? Come on,Wikipedia is better than this.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Time of death
Why is her time of death important? We never include time of death in articles. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, sometimes articles have that. Typically I take it out unless there's some timeline of events for the day (shot at 2, arrived hospital at 3, died at 4) but given that this is (cough, cough) the oldest person ever, I guess precision is appropriate. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Reverting certain deletions which are relevant to fraud discussion
The article has recently been enriched by an intriguing fraud proposal, but unfortunately the article has also been "cleansed" of details which would help the reader to assess the veracity of Jeanne Calment's age claim. In detail:


 * I have resurrected Calment's claim that she used an 18mm rifle for hunting. A Wikipedia editor has pointed out that this calibre is highly unlikely to have been used by a small woman due to the recoil.


 * I have resurrected the change in time zone in France in 1940 from London time to Berlin time (the invading Germans imposed the German time zone in France, and the French have adhered to German time ever since). In the 1990s interview, Calment was asked when she got up in her youth, and her reply was "when one is young, one gets up at eight o'clock". Sunrise in London and Arles is on average at 6am London time, but at 7am German time. Clearly, getting out of bed two hours after sunrise is out of the question for an 1880s French schoolgirl. So Calment's answer is either mistaken, or she has factored in the 1940 time change without mentioning it. So the fraud hypothesis might fit better here, whereby Yvonne would be familiar with the sleep routine of her 14-year-old son Frederic from 1940 onwards.


 * I have resurrected the final remark that Calment requested her doctor to place Yvonne's photo and the {grand}-son's photo on her coffin. It is significant that she did not request her husband's picture to be placed on her coffin. Either Calment did not love her husband, or (fraud hypothesis) he is not her husband.

Although these three details seem to support the fraud hypothesis, please do not get too excited yet. I have read the cited fraud literature and am astonished that the fraud researchers have not accessed the most important source on Calment, that is the medical PhD thesis. They need to complete their homework. I look forward to it. 86.180.157.222 (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the footnote about time zone changes: all countries went through various timezone adjustments over 100+ years, so we can not infer any particular information from this data point. Besides, any purported impact of timezone changes in France over Jeanne Calment's life or childhood habits would have to be sourced, and I'm not aware that any RS has discussed such correlation. Fine with the other information you restored (affluent life, hunting rifle, burial details). — JFG talk 22:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Concur with JFG's removal of the timezone minutiae. And I re-removed the burial details (before the above was posted) as trivia. And now that I read the above, the idea that the selection of photos is some inside wink wink is OR. Anyway, if "Jeanne" was really Yvonne, then her "husband" was really her father, and you could just as well ask why she did not love her father enough to want a photo of him, either. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 04:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Alas you are both missing the point: It is not plausible for a French schoolgirl regularly to get up two hours after sunrise; it is far more plausible for her to get up one hour after sunrise. Mentioning the time (8am) without mentioning the timezone (French vs German) is therefore seriously misleading for the reader. Keep that in mind. I added the time zone two years ago because Calment's lifestyle details were potentially relevant for her longevity - human metabolism and hormone levels change once we detect blue light in the morning. This article is all about Calment's longevity and the long-term factors that might be relevant, such as her waking at 6.45am (German time, i.e. at sunrise) every morning in the care home. (Incidentally, there was no suspicion of fraud in 2016, but the fact that such suspicions now exist make this time zone information even more relevant to the article.) Please do not dig in - think about it for a few days, think of the researchers who may need this information but are unaware of the French time zone changes in 1891 and 1940, and then please calmly revisit the issue. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not plausible for a French schoolgirl regularly to get up two hours after sunrise; it is far more plausible for her to get up one hour after sunrise – That statement belongs in the WP:OR Hall of Fame. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 13:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, so I have rephrased rigorously in the new section below.86.180.157.73 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In other news...
I find the use of the term "resurrected" in this thread quite distasteful. Why, the downright disrespect! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 12:05 am, Today (UTC−5)

Necessity to state time zone information
New thread. In the USA, there are different time zones, and furthermore, various US states have "daylight savings time", i.e. a one-hour change of clocks during certain months of the year. Therefore it is usual and necessary on Wikipedia to provide time zone information for time-of-day statements. For example, Wikipedia specifies that the World Trade Centre attacks on 11 September 2001 started at 8.46am EDT (Eastern Daylight Savings Time Zone).

When Calment states that she rises at 8am when young (one interview) or at 6.45am when old (a different interview), it is likewise necessary to state the time zone information, because she lived through three different time zones in France (1875-1891 local solar time, 1891-1940 Greenwich Mean Time, 1940-1997 Central European Time).

The time zone information is relevant primarily because the factors connected with her longevity are of outstanding interest in the Wikipedia article (her diet, sleeping cycle, exercise regime, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, and general lifestyle are described extensively in the article). The time zone is also potentially relevant to assess the recent fraud hypothesis outlined above.

For both these reasons, it is a disservice to deprive the Wikipedia reader of the time zone information, and instead mislead the reader with two seemingly contradictory time statements. The time zone footnote must be reinstated. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't get why time zone or time she rose matters at all. Different people get up at different times for various reasons. Getting up between 6 and 8 am is not extraordinary and therefore can not be important to her supposed longevity. The timeline of 9/11 is a whole different case because lots of people are interested in organizing the chronology of that eventful day. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Medical researchers state that a person's sleep pattern (night owl vs morning lark) is a major determinant of mortality. Take a look at this recent BBC report on recent research.. Also Calment's doctors documented Calment's sleep habits carefully. So if you have no other objection, we can go ahead with the footnote.86.180.157.73 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When a reliable source points out the significance of this to an understanding of Calment's life, then we can add it. Until then it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your view is that a fact on Calment can only be mentioned when a reliable source says it is relevant to understanding Calment's life. No. The article mentions that Calment lived in Arles. But no reliable source has pointed out that living in Arles is relevant to understanding her life. And regarding time zone specification, you would not be making such a fuss on the Wikipedia page which says the World Trade Centre was attacked at 8.36am EDT, would you? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * RSs on the WTC attack give the time. Correct me if I'm wrong but no RS on Calment talks about time zone details. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * From what I know of the Calment literature (all in French), I think you are right. The time switches in 1891 and 1940 appear to be such common knowledge in France that no French literature seems to have bothered mentioning it. An English-speaking Wikipedia reader in contrast will not have this basic knowledge, which is why the footnote is required. You often find such explanatory footnotes in translated works. For example, two years ago I took the liberty of translating Calment's height (reported in an English-language newspaper) from feet and inches into centimetres and added that in an explanatory bracket. This would also violate your stipulation, in that the "relevance" of feet vs centimetres to "understanding Calment's life" has not been pointed out in the Calment literature. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Our manual of style provides for routine conversion of units of measure. We don't translate times of day into Greenwich time, or sidereal time, or time on Jupiter, except for historical events with significance across multiple times zones; what time Jeanne Calment got out of bed is not an historical event. You really need to stop thinking you're going to out-logic the rest of us; you're outmatched. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 20:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to be patient with each other. You have a lot of expertise on Wikipedia rules, and I have a lot of expertise on Calment. So we can, and are, teaching each other interesting points, without resorting to unbecoming language. Clearly we need to update the Wikipedia manual of style for cases where there is a mismatch between timescales. I imagine there will already be a Wikipedia guideline for converting the Julian calendar (used in the UK until 1752 and in Russia until 1917) into modern Gregorian calendar dates to avoid confusion between contradictory time notations. A similar rule should now be implemented in cases where a person like Calment lived through three different time notations. Will you be co-operative in this effort, and can you point me towards the manual? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TIME; I feel it's only fair to warn you that I predict your proposal will be met with derision. She also lived through the Third Republic, Fourth Republic, and Fifth Republic. Should we mention that too? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of factors in life habits and in genetic background that may have an influence about a person's eventual life span. Singling out the purported effect of time zone changes gives them undue weight. Note that the same time zone changes affected millions of people who lived in France at that time, and similar time zone changes affected billions of people who lived all over the planet when governments adjusted legal time forwards or backwards with wanton abandon… If there was a measurable effect, we would see some extra life expectancy for all French people born in the 1870s. That does not seem to be the case, or if it is, nobody has researched and documented it. This theory is mere speculation by an editor, and must stay out of this article. — JFG talk 1:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * Briefly, your lifespan proposals are interesting but speculative and I therefore agree that your theory must therefore stay outside the article. Instead, the time zone information should be provided as a neutral fact, like in other Wikipedia articles.86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, our article on the subject says "DST has mixed effects on health." Jonathunder (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, interesting, but not directly relevant to the time zone footnote.86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @IP86: Sorry, we don't go around adding time zone shifts in any random person's biography. We might as well say that the summer of 1912 was pretty damn hot. Please stop beating that particular horse. — JFG talk 21:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi JFG. I appreciate you are tired of this argument and so am I. I am genuinely puzzled why there is so much resistance to a simple clarifying footnote - I think we have all argued ourselves into a corner and cannot get out. So I will not pester you any more. I hope EEng will respond instead. Please just let me explain my perspective: from a medical point of view, we are interested in lifetime events in ageing humans, such as skeletal shrinkage, frailty, and loss of sleep as we age, the latter now being reassessed as a major deleterious aspect of ageing. People like me are therefore greatly interested in snippets of information about this exceptional Madame Calment, namely that she hardly shrank during her lifetime, did not need a cane until 114, and apparently suffered only minor sleep loss over her lifetime (?? this is where the time zone comes in). To you this might all sound uninteresting, but to us it is pretty crucial info. If she turns out to be a fraud (and I have an open mind on this - the Russian research alas has a glaring omission by not consulting the medical PhD thesis), then my interest in these details will diminish. So that is where I stand. Now good night and Happy New Year 2019. 86.180.157.73 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked at a few articles on other people notable for longevity and didn't see any mention of changes in civil time, though almost all of them must have lived through that. Apparently there just aren't sources that find that relevant. Show us some and we might have something to discuss. Jonathunder (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are referring to. Why would a time zone change affect longevity? 86.180.157.73 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, you're the one saying it's relevant. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one who finds this conversation confusing. All I'm saying is that we would need sources as to how it's even relevant. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thou speakest in riddles. I am talking about my footnote, converting (old) GMT time to (new) CET time for the benefit of non-French Wikipedia users, just like you might convert miles to kilometres for the benefit of non-English Wikipedia readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.157.73 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

French media coverage
This story suddenly gathered interest from French media since yesterday. Some excerpts:
 * Overview of hypothesis + reactions of various medical and demography experts in Le Matin (Switzerland)
 * Defense of her age validation by Jean-Marie Robine in Le Parisien (now properly cited in our article)
 * Followup: did the French state look the other way? (a former tax inspector speaks out!)
 * Followup: should the bodies be exhumed?
 * Overview of the controversy by CNews
 * Robine interviewed on Europe 1 (holds on to the "gold standard" Calment validation, which he helped establish)

Interesting tidbits emerging from these reports: Nice way to start 2019! — JFG talk 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Robine explains (Europe 1) that he only met Calment in 1993 when she was already 117, and started validating her case at that time. He states that he met her 30 times and recorded all interviews. He argues that 19th-century longevity validators had identified all common traps, and advocated asking the subject pointed questions about facts that she only could know. Robine accordingly relied heavily on oral testimony by Jeanne, but he could not interview other people who knew her well, because they were all dead! — JFG talk 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A former tax inspector from the Finance Ministry states that he looked at Calment's file which stood out as a statistical anomaly, as the insurance company had contacted the tax authorities to "cover their ass". No followup from either side.
 * Several of the experts contacted by the media actually welcome the renewed scrutiny on Calment's case, and praise the quality of the research published by Zak and Novoselov.
 * Great, thanks, JFG! On this basis, I suggest the fraud hypothesis be reinstated in the lead. Opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.157.73 (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Last I looked, it's still briefly mentioned in the lead; no need to change anything there. — JFG talk 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I just hope we aren't creating news here rather than documenting it. This was an obscure study done which has all of a sudden exploded in French media, the initial Russian source cites Wikipedia for the mislabeled picture. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I read about this story in French newspapers, and it would seem to me that there are now serious doubts regarding her age and identity. We therefore shouldn't treat her own claims as facts, only claims. For instance we should remove the category 1875 births from the article on the individual who died in 1997. --Tataral (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Until these doubts are proven the status should stay per WP:TRUTH. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubts are not "proven" which is partly why verifiability, not truth is a policy. We report what the sources say. Right now they are in flux on this subject. Jonathunder (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is correct that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Here the burden of proof is placed on those editors who want to include material, not the other way round. In this case, this means stating her long life span as an objective and undisputed fact, as opposed to treating the claims in a more nuanced manner. It seems that current reliable sources now generally agree that there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt. This level of doubt now reflected in reliable sources calls for treating her WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims in a nuanced manner that includes different views. We will, of course, continue to include the fact that she claimed to have a long life span and that her claims were widely recognised until 2018, while at the same time including the criticism of those claims. --Tataral (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Her successor in lede, the lede
It seems to me that the lede contain very little in total, and things of not much great interest at all. The scoffing at her claiming to have met Vincent van Gogh does not really belong there. The lede should have things people are interested in like her lifestyle and habits and mention how she was uniquely strong and mentally intact for a supercentenarian, being able to stand unaided and make witty remarks. I see nothing wrong with her sucessor, especially are the current lede is pitifully short.Overagainst (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a particular person, not the weird listkeeping of "reigns" and "successors". We have lists of old people for that stuff. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, this article is about Calment, not other old people. The claimed chance encounter with VvG may not belong in the lede, but perhaps her appearance in the film "Vincent and Me" and in other media is worth mentioning there. Jonathunder (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do think the media appearances might be worth a sentence. But I have a suggestion: for an article that's in flux to any degree, the thing to do is forget all about the lead until the very end. The best time to judge what goes in the lead is when editors have the maximum experience with the overall content. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh there is an obsession operating on this lede but not for long lists it was the weird but very common one of drive by lede chopping. It has the signs of being repeatedly chopped down to the point of ridiculousness in relation to the article. This is about her because of her notability and should concentrate on those aspects and a link to an individual who was not  "Other old people" but the oldest person on the planet would be  fine in the lede, as they were notable for the same reason she was. Of course almost anything looks odd in the lede after the lede choppers have finished with it' OT Article says she and her husband were double second cousins, but it was the grandfathers and grandmothers who were siblings? Overagainst (talk)
 * What? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I must have made a mistake. I thought the body of the article was saying said that Jeanne Calment (nee Calment ) and her husband shared grandparents, and that would make them first cousins "On 8 April 1896, at the age of 21, she married her double second cousin, Fernand Nicolas Calment (1868–1942). Their paternal grandfathers were brothers, hence the same surname and their paternal grandmothers were also sisters.[2]". It would have had bearing on the argument that Jeanne had her husband's nose because she was actually his daughter Yvonne. Double first cousins can share a quarter of their genes.


 * What you are saying about the lead being expanded makes sense, but I think people might expect a little more of a lede than exists. The sucessor is on other oldest living person articles. Overagainst (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Better video re van Gogh
Can someone who understands that language spoken by French people in France tell us if this 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. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks! So, is this a different interview from the one in the Youtube vid now linked in the article? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * OK, I've made this edit ; turns out this vid was already used in the article. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

In the INA interview of 1989, Calment says that her husband introduced her to Van Gogh, which is totally absurd, as she was 12 or 13 when allegedly meeting him in 1888. The narrator also states that Jeanne's "father and husband" sold material to Van Gogh. However Jeanne's father had nothing to do with the family store: it belonged to her uncle. Conversely, Yvonne's father, was indeed coming from the branch of the family that owned the store. So, in the Yvonne hypothesis, we have an old lady re-telling and possibly embellishing a tale from her actual father, who was in fact Jeanne's husband. (He may indeed have sold stuff to the artist, because he was 20 in 1888.) In the "old Jeanne" hypothesis, we have an even older lady vividly remembering the scene where her "husband" introduces her to Van Gogh (So my husband told him: "Mr Van Gogh, let me introduce you to my wife." I said "That's Van Gogh?" He didn't move from his canvas.) when she was still a teenager, eight years before she got married. Yvonne's story is at least plausible, Jeanne's story makes absolutely no sense. Yeah, some age validation there! — JFG talk 22:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This all amounts to original research and discredits the dozens of studies done on the matter. For now this all amounts to an unproven hypothesis as there are no mainstream sources covering any of this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and we do present the Yvonne story as just that, a hypothesis. Allow me some communication with other interested editors on the talk page, as I happen to speak French and could understand what was said in the cited video. I do not suggest to add any of this to the article. — JFG talk 02:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's skip any discussion of how these interviews interact with the validity of the longevity claim, the impostor hypothesis, etc. But we can certainly present the subject's own words. If the relevant segments aren't too long, would it be asking too much to request a verbatim transcript from both vids? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The INA source is interspersed with "funny" commentary by the reporter ad-libbing about his childhood and the will to die; I don't think a full transcript would be very useful. I can try and cite relevant passages from the lady's utterances, though. Her tone of voice is quite interesting, especially when she makes a show of despising Van Gogh, but we can't convey that without delving into WP:OR. Just watched the 1994 video as well: she says that she met Van Gogh towards the "very end of his life" (that would be 1890), she repeats that he bought canvas from her husband, and she states that Van Gogh was "well known in the city", "not in good shape", "burned by alcohol", and went to brothels "not for women, but to drink". Personal note: how would a 13-year-old girl be aware of all this gossip? Never mind that she wouldn't marry until she turned 21 and the painter was long dead. — JFG talk 03:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, verbatim interspersed with ... <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 03:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article also points out inconsistencies in Jeanne Calment's Van Gogh story. It quotes a French interview that has not been previously sourced on Wikipedia. TrueGentleman99 (talk) 04:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A quick glance at the Paris Match interview from 1988 reveals the following discrepancies:
 * She says she had brown hair and green eyes, but her ID card from the 1930s specifies black hair and black eyes.
 * Claims they had an automobile, putatively a Peugeot, dès le début de mon mariage (from the start of my marriage). Given that Jeanne married in 1896 and Peugeot built about 100 cars that year for a French population of roughly 40 million people, her husband would have been quite an exceptional man, probably the first in his town, and one of the very first in Provence, to buy a car.
 * Claims that she took her baptême de l'air at age 40, i.e. in 1915. That would have been the middle of World War I, and it's quite doubtful that any aviator would take a tourist lady up for a spin on a biplane. Much more plausible for Yvonne in 1938, when commercial aviation had become viable.
 * The Van Gogh story is more realistic there: she says she was not yet married when he came to the store to buy canvas. Still calls him ugly, and says he scared children.
 * She says she attended the inauguration of the Arles museum with Frédéric Mistral when she was "just married". That happened in 1899, three years after her wedding, and one year after her baby girl was born. Hmm, no spontaneous mention of the baby in that context?
 * She says Yvonne died of pleurisy, whereas our article says she died of pneumonia. Need to double-check sources on that detail.
 * Nothing very conclusive one way or another: people can mis-remember dates or mix up stories. However it's hard to explain how she could be wrong about her own hair and eye color! — JFG talk 05:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously, one cannot assume that Jeanne never heard anything of van Gogh after he died. Jeanne surely heard and read stories and rumours of him long after his death and these feature in retelling. Also, it doesn't tell us anything about Jeanne vs Yvonne, as Yvonne could have heard stories of van Gogh from her parents and other older people who had met her and could have simply retold them as her own.--Mikoyan21 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The videos of her talking about Van Gogh are a primary source for other reporting we use. We SHOULD evaluate questionable sources against other sources and try to verify against known facts. Her own words, when tested against a known facts outside her control like Van Gogh's death date, reveal what can only be a lie. Why did the experts who used the Van Gogh story not pick up on the absurdity of her claim? It makes the whole "modern standards of age verification" process pretty suspect. Sorry but an obvious lie is an obvious lie - but the superold fan club is blind to facts that they don't like. Legacypac (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Then take it to WP:RSN. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It was generally assumed that she was exaggerating the Van Gogh story (it was known to have grown over the years).©Geni (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a number of experienced editors here fully capable of assessing sources. If you have an issue with a source amd need some outside assestence go get it. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Video transcripts
Difficult to parse because the sound is bad, Calment's voice is sometimes muffled, and the journalist's questions have been edited out, and interspersed with his musings on childhood and aging. Accordingly, I'll transcribe Calment's words verbatim, and only paraphrase the reporter's questions. — JFG talk 04:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1989 interview

Much clearer sound. Mostly uncut footage of a doctor asking her precise questions, and her direct answers. — JFG talk 04:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1994 interview


 * WOW! Great work! And to be clear, the 1989 vid is http://boutique.ina.fr/video/CAB89003100/jeanne-calment-114-and-a-rencontre-van-gogh.fr.html (which would seem to not have a copyright problem) and the 1994 is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB_yIlnaryg which we has no apparent copyright status (so we probably can't link to it). Or is there any chance you found the 1994 vid somewhere else? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Did not look for other sources for the 1994 interview. The video comes from a France 3 regional TV program. I believe we can link to it, and credit it to France 3. — JFG talk 08:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally don't consider it a big deal, but others will, so... we're really not supposed to link to apparent copyvios (which this seems to be) but I don't know of any restriction on referring to it, given that's it's obviously authentic. So I believe we can cite it by giving the date and so on, just omitting the link. I know that seems weird but I think it meets policy. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 22:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just like we cite an offline book. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Father vs Husband
The page now quotes her biographer as saying an identity assuming daughter would have to have been passed off as the wife of her father. Does that timeline make sense? I understood the surviving woman lived with the husband of Yvonne/father of Yvonne's son. Legacypac (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes some sense. If, according to the fraud theory, Jeanne died in 1934, then Jeanne's husband Fernand would have to pretend until his death in 1942 that his daughter Yvonne is his wife. You can read this in the Wikipedia article details. I disagree however that this is a fatal criticism to the fraud theory because Fernard would never need to tell his family and acquaintances that he is passing off his daughter as his wife to the French authorities. I can well imagine it is easy to keep up this paperwork pretence for 8 years. But back to the real issue: fix the timezone footnote please. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The "real issue" is the timezone in a footnote? Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fernard would have a big incentive to participate in an identity swap, saving his only child a large tax bill. Both women were housewives so there was no need to swap them at work (a dead woman could not keep earning money and paying income tax). Neighbours would know Fernard's wife died (she is not around now) and no one would check the paperwork that said the daughter died instead. Meanwhile the daughter was still living with her husband raising their son and neighbors would not know she was dead on paper. Move out of town for a while (documentented) and make new friends using a new name and the switch is complete. Even today people assume new identities all the time for witness protection, fraud or personal reasons. A person could even say "I changed my preferred name to honor my mom" to their friends/acquaintances. I have a friend that did not like his given name he used growing up. He made a change as an adult and is now universally known by a completely different given name. No big deal. Legacypac (talk)
 * We are straying into WP:NOT territory, but I'd like to leave you a note of thanks for this breakdown on how Fernand could easily be complicit while not even hiding Jeanne's death from his acquaintances. A few years later, World War II blurred everything, and I can easily see Jeanne re-emerging after the war, with Yvonne's death blamed on a war-related illness. Fernand's store was also closed down in 1937, so who would be left to know Jeanne from Yvonne? "Jeanne" could easily tell tales of losing her poor daughter and beloved husband, and lovingly raising her grandson away from the crowds. — JFG talk 18:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Note the expert now quoted as dismissing the switch theory wrote a book on Calment. So they are pretty heavily invested in dismissing the theory that, if true, makes a major effort on their part look like pretty sloppy research. There was nothing remarkable about Calment except her reported age so if she died at 99, no reason to write a book about her. The author would have to admit they were fooled to accept the possibility of a swap. Legacypac (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for agreeing with me. It will be interesting to see the Russian research when it is completed. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Since most experts on the matter will have written something about it your argument amounts to dismissing anyone who has studied it in depth which is unhelpful.©Geni (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If anything, this discussion shows the possible unreliableness of the bio author who dismisses a good theory on a strawman argument about the father/husband having to justify calling his daughter his wife. Their call to logic falls pretty flat under a little bit of analysis while the living arrangements documented by the Russian researcher support his theory of a switch. Currently the attack on the switch theory takes up more space than the switch theory, which seems like undue weight when we can poke easily holes in the central argument against the switch. Legacypac (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Yvonne/Jeanne substitution is a fascinating possibility, but there is another: have you checked the Russians' photo gallery? Personally I think the middle-aged lady looks neither like the younger Jeanne Calment not like her daughter Yvonne. Compare young Yvonne's droopy eyelids with the alert eyes of the middle-aged Calment... I urge you to engage in research on this subject, you are clearly interested. 86.180.157.73 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit conflict
There was a bit of an edit conflict as we both updated a significant portion of the article at the same time. Please look at my version and tell me what you think should yet be improved based on your ideas. Thanks. — JFG talk 12:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the main body of the article has more or less sufficient references, and there should be a paring down of extraneous detain and repetition of the arguments and theories. I also think that it is best to avoid saying that Calment family members may have been in on a deception. For the lede, Something along the lines of her having attained the unprecedented age of 122 having become generally accepted after  two French gerontologists pronounced her verified as the oldest person ever, but  it being increasingly questioned in the scientific community whether she was that age or even who she claimed to be. It's a lost cause with topical articles, but I like ledes that are a little intriguing  to make you read on and not ones that give the details of opposing viewpoints. Driveby editors who want to give undue weight to specific viewpoints will want to add add refs to ledes so the lede gets flipped back and forth multiple times a day, but lede refs are not supposed to be there according to the style guide.  I think i'll leave the article page alone, and let others edit now.Overagainst (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Per some good advice from EEng in a section above, let's focus on the body for now and once it's stable we can rewrite the lede. Jonathunder (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is not going to be anything new discovered but in my experience that rarely means an article becomes stable. I expect the lede will get tit for tat drivebys with a ref forever after.Overagainst (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)