Wikipedia

Talk:List of long marriages/Archive 2

< Talk:List of long marriages
Latest comment: 5 years ago by AngusWOOF in topic Changing the article's scope to be about list of people in long marriages
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

John and Ann Betar

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

They say John and Ann Betar are the longest married couple in the USA. when they clearly aren't. Also no why article on Ted and Alice Rortvedt's 81st wedding anniversary, and the same for Marlo and Cleta Schermerhorn. 80.42.218.103 (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed so: the "WWME" (="Worldwide Marriage Encounter") only lists US state winners from couples that have been entered into the "competition", and those people can't "compete" again the following year, that's why, plus those articles simply aren't there. 213.49.93.67 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Daniel and Susan Bakeman

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

It is stated he married at age 12. I cannot find the source that was used to verify the day he was married. What document was used, as his home burned up with all things in it. If a certificate of mariage was found at the court house this needs to be stated. If in fact they were married longer than anyone, we need a document to prove this. I agree with the person rightabove me. It's like add anyone to the list if it was mentioned in a newspaper 150 years ago, and nothing to support it. PershingBoy76.11.140.229 (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is far from unusual in longevity articles. It exploits a failing in the definition of reliable sources whereby if you can find it in print (newspaper or other non-academic work) it's "good enough" even though it is little more than hearsay and any objective reasoning would consider it unreliable. "Verification (in the wiki sense, not the real world sense) not truth" apparently, although I would read it as "reported rumour not fact". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The only link to this source is broken (as of this posting). Must add additional citations for this to be kept. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I added another source to fix this. 81.11.203.188 (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Trimming the article

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is now 140k+, which is well over the recommended maximimum size of 100k. One reason for this is the open-ended all-time list; setting a minimum age means that the list will keep on growing ad infinitum. This is not very encyclopedic. The all-time list should be set to the 100 oldest ever to keep it inline with other "list of oldest-people"-type articles (potentially the same issue could happen eventually with the oldest combined age list but that is probably some years away). Unless there is any justification for not doing so I intend to reduce the "Longest marriages ever" section to the top 100 (and at the same time update the list as it doesn't seem to have been done for some months). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait for some days. 81.11.203.188 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Highest combined age section

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This is clearly OR and should be removed. Unless anyone can justify its retention, and provides WP:RS for such a list, I'll remove it after a week. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this from the main page. If someone wants to move it to their user page (where it belongs) or wants to try and make it a stand-alone article (good luck) it can be removed from here. It will, eventually, be archived from this page. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I have now archived this. Note that it should NOT be modified (i.e. updated) in the archive. If any user wants to continue the OR for this list they will need to copy it to their user page and do it there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Length of marriage

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

It is ridiculous to include (as has just been done) into the oldest ever list a couple who celebrated their 80th anniversary more than 5 years ago. It is highly unlikely that both are still alive. The same can probably be said for many others in the list. It makes far more sense to list the length of marriage at the last report. If, and when there is an update (e.g. when one of the couple dies) the length of marriage can be changed then, and only then. I'll change the list accordingly as soon as I get time. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I have now done this. There is now no need to update the table as the length of marriage will remain static until there is an update. Many cases have now been moved to the hidden section, they should only be added if there is a citation which establishes the marriage to be longer than the current minimum on the list (until the list gets back to 100 cases). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Pending list

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Update this list from the list above, retaining only cases with both living. I suggest these be added to the main list once there is evidence that they have surpassed 80 years.DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed so: fulfilled. 62.235.179.232 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Names Lifespan Marriage date Marriage time Place of death or current residence Source(s)
Thomas Richardson Husband
Ethel B. Rowland Husband 		1914 -
Sep. 1915 - 		8 October 1934 90 years, 52 days Living in Jarrow, County Durham, England,
  United Kingdom 		[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Elderly couple aged 97 98 celebrate incredible 78 years marriage
  2. ^ Still in love after 77 years
  3. ^ Marriages from the Registers of Jarrow St Mark (1896-1948)

Other marriages

Latest comment: 10 years ago22 comments13 people in discussion

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish couple's claim can't be proven at all and that German anonymous couple sadly misses details, but the Kuykendalls should be added. 62.235.130.95 (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Who would believe this claim in fact (I guess nobody)? 62.235.132.81 (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Most probably fake according to Italian correspondents Giovanni Alunni and Paolo Scarabaggio. 62.235.154.244 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I will ask them again to debunk this. 62.235.154.219 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, sir. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
It's my pleasure though. 62.235.154.219 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this French couple (not the longest married in the whole of Europe though, as claimed in the article, but allthesame), and I will add them tomorrow to the evergrowing list of couples married for 80+ years (both still living and deceased). 213.49.93.228 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I had a connection failure last night, so I added them just now, along with the latest confirmed couple (Americans again), but now have the couples outside of the top 100 been transferred to this talk page too, since I really didn't want them to be deleted at all. 213.49.123.121 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

India

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What this should list is marriages where both party's were at least 16 years old or older. India kiddie marriages where both parties were babies when their families married them should be disallowed. 98.253.155.86 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but a marriage is a marriage, whether or not they were babies indeed, man. 81.11.203.188 (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Chand marriage should be removed. In most of the world if a 20 year old man "married" a 13 year old child it would not be valid. It would be considered child rape as she is not old enough to give permission for adult activity. Only if both party's are at least 16 years old or better then they should be on this list.If not this site promotes kiddie marriages like the Chand so called marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 08:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Personal opinion is NOT a basis for inclusion/exclusion in Wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Over 75% of the countries of the world would not allow a 20 year old man to marry a 13 year old kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No, but it definitely was not against the law at that particular time and in that particular country, hence. 62.235.180.103 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Surviving spouse?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is no such thing as a surviving spouse. Once one of the people die in a marriage the marriage ends and you are no longer a spouse. The so called surviving spouse becomes a Widow (if female) or a Widower (if male). The term spouse is no longer used as the widow or widower is able to marry again at any time. If the person was still called a spouse they could not be able to remarry. 98.253.155.86 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase "surviving spouse" is a perfectly normal English phrase eliminating the need to needlessly write "widow or widower" and is perfectly valid in the context of lists of married couple where one of the partners predeceased the other. Nobody is saying to any of these surviving spouses "You are still a spouse". English is a language for efficient communication and however meaningless you may regard the phrase "surviving spouse" it nevertheless does its job of communicating the necessary concepts required for understanding. Silas Maxfield (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Does anyone know why Alvin and Eula Blankenship aren't on the longest marriages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.216.175 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do: there is no online proof of their survival up to at least the exact day of their 80th marriage, let alone till right now. 62.235.162.230 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

How about Edna and Harold Owings, there aren't any obituaries ANYWHERE. Also they were cute together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.216.175 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but since there were also no further reports about their long(est) marriage (in the US) at all, I therefore conclude that the anonymous person (just like you in fact) who added both their death dates knew them personally: do you know the Blankenships? 83.134.28.26 (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Staff photo/Joe Shearer Alvin and Eula Blankenship will be honored today for being the longest recorded married couple in Iowa at 79 years, February 22, 2014 [1], NBC News Channel, June 12, 2013
″Edna Owings, 101, and her husband Harold, 102, kiss during their 82nd wedding anniversary dinner at Pasta Cucina restaurant inside Palace Station hotel-casino in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Nov. 26, 2013″ Centenarians celebrate 82 years of married life, November 26, 2013 --Ochrid (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Well: that's only proof of 79 years of marriage, not 80, and 82, not 83, respectively, my friend. 83.134.14.92 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't someone get in touch with Alvin and Eula Blankenship's great-niece https://www.facebook.com/wowt6news/photos/a.58540782085.65032.10396532085/10151625374217086/ her name is Brooke Adamson to confirm they are living as well as Harold and Edna Owings's granddaughter Carlah Schneider to get confirmation if Harold And Edna are deceased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.53.113 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I will try to contact at least the Facebook member in fact. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"...As of last report"?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For cases on the "oldest ever" list in which both people are still living, why is the length of marriage listed as the length it was "at the time of the last report"?

  • 1. If there is no reliable source stating that either have died, then as far as I'm concerned, we should assume that both are alive as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise;
  • 2. This could relay inaccurate information because a couple could be ranked based on the age at the last report, whereas in reality, they should be ranked higher.

Thanks. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Well: it's something done by DerbyCountyinNZ, and he's some sort of a moderator over here I guess, so you should get in touch with him about this and his exact motives for it. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I no longer have any interest in this article. It's typical fanfluff and I see no way of making it a worthwhile article which complies with Wiki standards. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Longest marriage

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

If you google Bakeman, it says he was married 81 years and married at a much more believable 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.194.140.19 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but there is still no conclusive evidence for this at all, so it will remain "91" at least for the time being. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There is evidence against "91", but as normally Wikipedia is ignoring scientific facts. --2003:74:CD2B:4077:9019:9117:C0D4:3278 (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
There is at least as much "evidence" for as well as against "91", hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Since Bakeman's entry isn't supported by a single reliable source (unless you count findagrave.com, which is primary at best), the entry should simply be removed. Pburka (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yang Shengzhong and Jin Jifen

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are some articles online about them celebrating their 90th on 16 December 2011, and they seem to be from reputable sources. http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/12/16/Chinas-oldest-couple-hit-90th-anniversary/27111324061828/ Not sure if they're still living, but it would at least put them on the longest overall list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:9780:A05:8069:A30E:96EE:A631 (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That was almost five years ago now, so it's very improbable indeed that they are still alive. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
What's the criteria to be included in the list of living people on this page? Hopefully it's something more objective than one editor opining that they're probably dead. The distinction between living and dead in this list is highly problematic, as very few of the people are notable in their own right, so their deaths are unlikely to be reported by secondary sources. Pburka (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that a paid obituary published by a funeral home is NOT a WP:reliable source. Funeral homes publish whatever the family asks them to, and do not exercise any sort of editorial control. Please do NOT add information from funeral homes, or other paid obituaries. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This list contains the longest known marriages according to researchers...

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

According to the article, the contents are verified by "researchers". To whom does this refer? Most of the marriages seem to be sourced to news reports or to primary sources (e.g. findagrave). Are the researchers in question in fact Wikipedia editors? If so, this would seem to fall afoul of our prohibition against original research. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

After 11 days with no discussion, I've been bold and rewritten this description to clarify that we don't rely on original research. Pburka (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Duranord and Jeanne Veillard

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article says they have been married since November 1932 (82+ years) and are both alive as of the end of February 2015: [2] Any verification? 96.255.218.185 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be 83 as of this month, if both are still alive that is, but having been born in Haiti it's very difficult indeed to verify their claim. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We don't need to verify anything, since it was reported by a reliable secondary source (USA Today). Our task as editors is not to verify data ourselves; that would be WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
So I also added them yesterday. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Pburka (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It's my pleasure in fact! Extremely sexy (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Deduplicate lists

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

We currently have two lists in this article: the list of couples who are both living, and a longer list of all couples. The first list is largely a subset of the second, and living couples are already marked in the second list. Additionally, the two lists are inconsistent. Couples appear in different order, or may appear in one list and not the other. As the first list is redundant with the second, I propose to delete the first list. Having one list to maintain will make our task simpler. Pburka (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. Pburka (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The first list is up to date, the second only updates with the most recent reports of their marriage. BebJush (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like a useful tool for a research site, but it doesn't help a reader, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We should just have one, unified list. Why can't the list be kept up to date? (Alternatively, the first list could be moved to a special talk or project page.) Pburka (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Unless someone comes up with a good explanation for why we need two lists, I'm going to delete the first list again. Pburka (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Francisco and Paulina Garcia

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As discussed above, this list should only contain marriages described as "longest" by reliable sources (not just a collection of long marriages found by editors). I'm having trouble finding evidence that Francisco and Paulina Garcia's 84 year marriage is a record of any kind, but it seems likely that it might be given its length. Can anyone find a source to support their marriage being some sort of record? (I did find this, but it's sourced to this page, so can't be used.) Pburka (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sam(uel)"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This list uses what appears (to me) to be nonstandard notation for names. For example, "Sam(uel)" and "T(h)e(o)d(ore)". Is this compliant with WP:MOS, some external convention, or is it just made up? Pburka (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've changed them all to be more consistent and conventional. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Long marriages, or longest marriages?

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

The title and the lead say that this is a list of people with the longest marriages and, indeed, a number of the longest ones are described by reliable sources as being either the longest in the world (of those still living at the time), or the longest in a particular region. But many of the others are simply long marriages, and we have no way of verifying that there aren't longer documented marriages which we're simply not aware of. This list should either be limited to marriages which are described as 'longest' by reliable sources, or we should rename it to List of long marriages. My preference is the former, but I'm comfortable with either resolution. Pburka (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No opinions on this? If not, I will start pruning the list to only include marriages described by reliable sources as longest in the world, longest in a region, or longest by some other criteria. Second, third, etc. longest should also count. I'll add a "notes" column to explain what kind of "longest" the marriage is. Pburka (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I've started working my way through the list including details about what record each marriage set, based on the sources provided with the entry. Once I've finished, it is my intention to delete any rows which don't claim to have set any record, or which set only a local record (e.g. longest marriage in Louisiana). Pburka (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
But why not just at least keep the 100 longest marriages known and referenced in the media just for good measure honestly? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
They're not the longest marriages known. They're 100 long marriages found by Wikipedia editors. If we keep them, we should rename the article to reflect that these aren't longest marriages, but simply long marriages. Pburka (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't suppose that there are many others unknown, so that's simply untrue! Extremely sexy (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Why do you suppose that? It sounds like you're describing WP:OR. The key point is: if we don't have a reliable source claiming a marriage is a 'longest' marriage, we can't say that it is. Pburka (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've commented out every entry for which I couldn't find even a vague claim of it being a record of some kind. I encourage other editors to try to find reliable sources supporting reinclusion of some of the entries I've removed. I intend to leave the list in its current state for a week or so, and then I'll remove the commented-out rows completely to make maintaining the list simpler. I also intend to further prune the list to remove some of the more dubious records ("Likely 2nd-longest married U.S. couple", "Surely one of San Diego's longest married couples", etc.) Pburka (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

After waiting more than a week I've deleted all the commented out entries. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
It's a definite fact that a marriage of at least 80 years is very rare indeed (and 81 all the more!), so I will restore the list to 100 marriages and therefore change the title of the article as well, mind you: per your own request, i.e. to "List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known". Extremely sexy (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
What you're describing is original research. We have absolutely no way of knowing that those are the 100 longest marriages. If necessary, we can move this discussion to WP:NORN. Pburka (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Death dates and unreliable sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Several (many?) of the entries on this list use unreliable sources for death dates. These are generally paid obituaries in newspapers or memorials posted on funeral home websites. WP:BDP applies to the people on this list, and, as very few of them are famous or public figures, we have to be particularly careful. We risk incorrectly reporting a person's death by relying on these sources. Since these people aren't famous, I think it's unlikely that we'll find reliable sources for their death dates in most cases. Per WP:BDP, we must remove the unreliable sources from the list. Without the sources, we must also remove the death dates. What should we do then? Do we leave the field blank for these people, or should we remove the column all together? (Removal is my preference; death is not directly relevant to a long marriage: it's just one common way for a marriage to end.) Pburka (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone responds with a policy-based argument, I'm going to start deleting improperly sourced death dates in the next few days. Pburka (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I've started removing unreliable sources and tagging unsupported death dates with {{cn}}. The situation is worse than I'd imagined. Many of the entries with death dates don't have any references from later than the purported death. We cannot have Wikipedia reporting the deaths of possibly living people without reliable sources! I think the safest way forward is to simply delete the entire lifespan column. I plan to do so within the next few days unless a compelling reason is put forth to keep it. Lifespans are not directly related to marriages, so I don't think it's essential for this list. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Pburka (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Duration of the actual relationship

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It would be interesting to see a list of couples by number of years the spouses have actually known each other, as opposed to having been married to each other. Many of the couples have achieved such long time spans simply by marrying at an abnormally young age, and that's not entirely consistent with the idyllic associations that Westerners have with the phrase "long marriage." Yes, I realize that such a list is probably unfeasible by unverifiability because there is no legal documentation of how long people have associated with each other informally, as opposed to having been married to each other. A case might, I guess, be made with other documentation, such as concerning past residence, border crossing, membership in educational institutions, other organizations, or familial relations (e.g., if they're cousins or adoptive siblings). 213.109.230.96 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It might be interesting, but unless reliable sources have compiled such a list, it would be original research for us to create one ourselves, and thus contrary to Wikipedia policy. Pburka (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Our IP friend certainly has an, um, interesting contributions history [3]. EEng 23:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Wanna psychoanalyze that? 213.109.230.96 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'll pass, thanks. EEng 20:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move (non-admin closure). sst✈ 08:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known → List of people with the longest marriages – Request restoration of original name. This page was recently moved to the current name without discussion or consensus. The moving editor improperly attempted to delete the resulting redirects, making it impossible to restore the name unassisted. Note that this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions, intended to discourage disruptive behavior such as renames contrary to consensus. Pburka (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Does the stupidity associated with longevity topics never cease? List of people with the 100 longest marriages in the world ever known -- let's see... "in the world" -- are there marriages on Mars? "ever known" -- is there a list of marriages which are not known, and if so, what would be the sources for those? EEng 04:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to mention of people -- are there marriages not involving people? EEng 00:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Human–animal marriage Legacypac (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Now at AfD. EEng 01:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
You're right -- another aspect of longevity stupidity. EEng 14:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to boldly revert the recent move because it clearly isn't even accurate. There are not 100 marriages in the list. We have a huge bias toward modern times, so these are likely not the longest "ever known". There was never any consensus for this move, so bold, revert, discuss applies. We should continue discussing, though. Ah, not possible due to the redirect. Of course. Bah. ~ RobTalk 15:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the length of the list should not be in the title, unless there are several lists for the same thing. The length restrictions instead should be specified in the intro. We cannot list things we do not know, so what we know is implicit in all articles. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Betar"

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

@Bart Versieck: You recently added a second record for the Betars, simply saying "Idem". I'm not familiar with this use of idem, as it usually refers to a citation, not to a quote or record. If this is a second record for the Betars, please clarify what the record is. If it's a second citation for the same record, then just add a second ref to the record: no need for a second quotation. Pburka (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It means likewise. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the meaning in Latin. What did you intend it to mean specifically? If this is a second record for the Betars, please clarify what the record is. If it's a second citation for the same record, then just add a second ref to the record: no need for a second quotation. Pburka (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Can't you see I was referring to a citation for another record mentioned, but I clarified it anyway. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
That citation is referring to the same, 2013, record. It's not a second record, just a confirmation of the 2013 record. Pburka (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Meaning it's a second citation of the same record, but within another article, hence the confusion! Extremely sexy (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Given that we agree that the Betar's have but one record, and that it was established in 2013, I've updated the list to have one record with two citations. Pburka (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
But the latest article does confirm their status of both being still alive very recently as well! Extremely sexy (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
That's unrelated to their record, so doesn't belong in the records column, unless a new record has been established and reported by reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay: understood. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Links modified on main page

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please review the links modified on the main page...—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Child rape a marriage?

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Your top so called marriage is a man over 18 marrying a little girl barely 13. In many country's this would be child rape and not a marriage. These Indian Kiddie marriages where adult men rape little girls after giving the girls poor parents money for a so called marriage should not be considered valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.140.9 (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't disagree with you that some of the marriages in the list are disturbing, and I'd like to see a more critical discussion of long marriages and the high number of child marriages among them (not surprisingly, people who marry at a very young age are more likely to survive long enough to set marriage longevity records.) However, this article is only a list of marriages. The right place for this information would be in a proper article, based on reliable sources. I'm not aware of such an article. Pburka (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Aley Thomas a 12 year old girl purchased from her parents. Another India rape marriage listed. She had not even started puberty when married. 184.17.223.59 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Any marriage where both parties are both age 16 and are mature enough to consent to marriage should be listed. These child rape marriages should be voided. That would include India and Muslim nations where child brides are bought and sold. 184.18.55.90 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

We don't decide which marriages are valid and which aren't. If reliable sources say that it's a record breaking marriage, we include it. Pburka (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Karam Chand

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is listed as the longest marriage? No proof of birth and no marriage license has ever been found. As he married his wife who was age 12 at the time if he is telling the truth. This was a bought bride from her family in India and child rape, not a marriage. He is now dead also, so the marriage is over. 50.102.141.170 (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Just because he has passed away it doesn't mean the marriage isn't the longest, it just means it isn't current. So what if she was aged 12, it is considered a legitimate marriage. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that we don't list it as the longest marriage. We list it as a longest marriage because reliable sources have reported that it was a record breaking marriage. We don't claim that there are no longer marriages, just no longer ones included here. Pburka (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove entry 9 (William and Nancy Fullingim)

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Entry 9, for William Archibald Archer Fullingim and Nancy Ellen Nannie (née Watson) Fullingim, is problematic. It's supported by three references, but none of them are reliable. The first is a letter published in an advice column, where the writer asserts that the Fullingims were her neighbors and describes the length of the marriage. The letter appears to be published verbatim, with no effort to verify the author's claims. The other two sources are both Find a Grave, a site which publishes unverified reports from the public. None of these sources are reliable, so we should not include this entry (unless a reliable source describing the length of their marriage can be found). I propose to delete the entry. Pburka (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As no one has objected, nor have any sources been provided, I've commented out this entry. Pburka (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still looking for a more reliable source proving the validity of their long marriage: would https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Worlds_Oldest_People/conversations/messages/18290 be good enough for you, please? Extremely sexy (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
That link doesn't work for me. Maybe it's a private forum? If so, what is the record, and what is the reliable source? Pburka (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
So it is, and it might be a good idea possibly for you to become a member over there: they found all relevant Census matches concerning them =>

"Re: William and Nancy Fullingim: oldest married couple?

Extended content
   calvin625
   Apr 3, 2012
   After I posted the message earlier today, I also wanted to ensure that the new 1870 census match of Nancy's family was consistent in later Census (considering that Nancy's father remarried to a "Mary J" in October 1869 -- exactly 10 years after his marriage to Nancy's mother, Martha Renner).

   I found the 1880, 1900, and 1910 Census of Nancy's father, James A. Watson with his 2nd wife, Mary.

   In the 1880 Census, on the image itself, I immediately recognized William Fullingim's name in the next household with his new wife, Nancy! I reviewed WOP messages and realized William Fullingim's 1880 Census was never mentioned! This supports the fact that they were already married before June 1880 (they claimed August 1879).

   Here we go!

   (full census page image in my Imageshack account) 1880 Census

   enumerated on the "24" day of June 1880

   Household #441

   James A. Watson 48 (Nancy's father)
   Mary Watson 34 (Nancy's step-mother)
   Mary E. Watson 17 (younger sister)
   Margaret Watson 15 (younger sister)
   John Watson 13 (younger brother)
   James L. Watson 9 (younger half-brother)
   Baby Watson 1 (younger half-brother)
   Jonas King 30
   Winson King 25
   Belle King 1

   Household #442

   W. H. Fullingham 25 (like other Census matches, probably a minor rounded up of age from 24 to 25 for his July 7, 1865 birth date)
   Nancy E. Fullingham 19 (finally something to *really* support her November 1, 1860 birth date)

   The 1900 & 1910 Census of Nancy's father is listed below as supporting documentation:

   1900 Census

   Jim A Watson 68 "Apr 1832" (married "30" years)
   Mary J Watson 54 "Oct 1845" (married "30" years) (2 children; 2 living)
   Edwin B Watson 21 "Oct 1878" (was "Baby Watson" aged "1" in 1880 Census)

   This supports that Nancy's step-mother herself had two children only, James (born about 1871) & Edwin (born 1878).

   1910 Census

   James Watson 78
   Mary Watson 64

   With this 1880 Census find, and all other previous census matches found by several people, we now know that they were already married before June 1880 until Nancy's death in April 1964 (guaranteeing that they were married "at least 83 years" but their August 1879 marriage is likely the correct year rather than 1878 or any other year).

   We also now have all necessary census records for William Fullingim (all others can be found in previous messages below).

   Cheers,

   * MEM
   Mark E. Muir

       Hide message history
       --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Y" <wop_groupmoderator@...> wrote:
       >
       > Greetings,
       > 
       > Has Nancy Watson been located in the 1870 census? I think that we have established that William Fullingim is at least 110, but Nancy is only 102 according to the SSDI record. Since William was 108 when Nancy died, it's going to be a close call for the "oldest married couple, aggregate age" record.
       > 
       > Currently, the official Guinness record is:
       > 
       > http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/human_body/age_and_youth/oldest_married_couple_aggregate_age.aspx
       > 
       >    Oldest Married Couple - Aggregate Age 
       >    
       > WHO: 
       > Karl and Marie Dølven   
       > WHAT: 
       > 210 years 65 days  
       > WHERE: 
       > Hole, Norway  
       > WHEN: 
       > 24 April 2004  
       >   
       > Karl Dølven (Norway, b. 31 August 1897) married Gudrun Haug (Norway, b. 14 October 1900) at Hole, Norway, on 4 June 1927. They remained married until Gudrun's death on 24 April 2004. At this time Gudrun was aged 103 years 193 days and Karl was 106 years 237 days - an aggregate age of 210 years 65 days . 
       >  
       > I think the Vietoris marriage is also in the running, if someone can document that age of Leopold's wife.
       > 
       > Sincerely
       > Robert Young
       > Moderator
       > World's Oldest People
       > 
       > 
       > 
       > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "cerceda05" cerceda05@ wrote:
       > >
       > > No, we can't. 1878 comes from the 1900 census and Ancestry.com, however the couple claimed to be married in 1879 and other sources also support 1879 (see the link below)
       > > 
       > > I would like to add more information to this case. According to the link below, William A. Fullingim was nicknamed "Uncle Bunch"
       > > 
       > > http://www.earljones.net/pafg43.htm
       > > 
       > > With this information I found a possible match in the 1910 census:
       > > Home in 1910: Kiowa, Oklahoma
       > > Beuch Fullingim 55
       > > Nannie E Fullingim 40
       > > Madge Fullingim 17
       > > John Rodgers 40
       > > 
       > > An also his son John Frank with his wife and older daughter:
       > > Home in 1910: Kiowa, Oklahoma
       > > Frank Fullingim 26
       > > Myrtle Fullingim 26
       > > Lyle Fullingim 2
       > > 
       > > The age of her wife is clearly wrong although the original may say something different (I can't check it because I don't have an account in Ancestry.com).
       > > 
       > > Regards,
       > > Miguel
       > > 
       > > 
       > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "andrew860329" <andrewpholmes@> wrote:
       > > >
       > > > Can we be sure of the year of marriage being in 1878? The claim was 1879.
       > > > 
       > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "cerceda05" <cerceda05@> wrote:
       > > > >
       > > > > Greetings,
       > > > > 
       > > > > This case is especially difficult because his birthday was very close to the census date of the 1860, 1870 and 1900 censuses. Very likely the census taker visited the family after his birthday.
       > > > > 
       > > > > In the case of 1860 and 1870 censuses, enumeration was to be completed within five months, which means that on average census data was recorded in August (as it happened with this family in the 1870 census). Five months means fewer census takers and a lot of work to do and, in this situation, the criteria of "recording people as of the census date" was very hard to achieve in practice. In other words, you can obtain the names and ages of an entire family in around a minute but if you additionally ask for the exact birthdates of every family member you will double the time, for sure.
       > > > > 
       > > > > The exception was the 1900 census because the census takers needed to record the month and year of birth as well. I guess that the overwork of this census was a factor for the decision of not recording month and year in 1910-30 censuses.
       > > > > 
       > > > > Therefore, the only strong argument supporting Jul. 1854 is the 1900 census. But let's take a look at the information we have:
       > > > > - He is initially recorded as 44 and then 45. When reading this, I though this the automatic answer of a person telling you his age soon after his birthday. A person born in Jul. 1854 (i.e., 46 or almost 46 at the time) will never answer 44 in first place.
       > > > > - Very likely he said the age and the birth month and the census taker concluded "Jul. 1854". Something similar happened with his son James W, likely born in Jul. 1880 (as the WWI draft registration and other documents suggest) and recorded as 20 and born in Jul. 1879 in this census.
       > > > > - The census also says Nannie E Fullingim was 40, suggesting she was born in Nov. 1859. However, she is not listed in the 1860 census (Wise County, TX, James Watson 26, Martha Watson, 21). So she likely was 39 at the time as all the documents we have say.
       > > > > 
       > > > > All considered, my opinion is that he was born on Jul. 7, 1855 as all the remaining censuses and documents suggest.
       > > > > 
       > > > > In addition of being World oldest person and World oldest man, his marriage is also worth considering. William A. Fullingim and Nancy E. Watson had one of the longest marriages in record:
       > > > > - Combined age: 213 years and 206 days (3rd in the Wikipedia list)
       > > > > - Combined age at the end of marriage: 212 years and 104 days (1st, surpassing Leopold Vietoris and wife)
       > > > > - Length of marriage: 85 years and 258 days (if married in 1878 as the 1900 census says)
       > > > > 
       > > > > Regards,
       > > > > Miguel
       > > > > 
       > > > > 
       > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Y" <wop_groupmoderator@> wrote:
       > > > > >
       > > > > > I think the only question now is whether we go with 110 or 111. While the claimed age was 110, the oldest record (1860 census) and the 1900 census (which has the year written as "1854") both support 111. The 1870 census is also a quandary...though recorded "Aug 3" the age is supposed to be recorded "as of the census date" which was in June.
       > > > > > 
       > > > > > Comments welcome from experienced GRG members.
       > > > > > 
       > > > > > Thanks
       > > > > > Robert Young
       > > > > > Moderator
       > > > > > 
       > > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "pristalucas" <fprista@> wrote:
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > According to Ancestry.com, William Archibald Fullingim was born in Red River, Texas, on July 7, 1855, the son of William J. Fullingim (1815-1872) and Carolina Eliza Reynolds (1824-1859). He married Nancy "Nannie" Ellen Watson (born November 1, 1860 in Decatur, Wise County, TX; Nancy died April 25, 1964 in Oklahoma, she was the daughter of James Andrew Watson and Martha Renner) on August 11, 1878 and was the father of James William Fullingim (born July 7, 1880 in Decatur, Wise County, TX, died July 7 1962 in Oklahoma), married to Dollie Suggs.
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Also, he was the brother of Mattie, Harris, Edward, Peyton and Jesse.
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Based on this I found him in Red River, Texas, in 1870 (taken August 3), as follows:
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Home in 1870: Red River, Texas
       > > > > > > Head: William Fullingane 54
       > > > > > > Son: Harris 23
       > > > > > > Daughter: Martha 19
       > > > > > > Son: Patton 19
       > > > > > > Son: William 15
       > > > > > > Son: Jesse 7
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > And in 1860 (taken on June 1):
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Home in 1860:	Red River, Texas
       > > > > > > Wm Fullenganne	45
       > > > > > > Harris Fullenganne	12
       > > > > > > Paton Fullenganne	9
       > > > > > > William Fullenganne	5
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Whereas the 1870 census points out to 1855 (age 110), the 1860 match suggests 1854 (age 111).
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > All the best,
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > Filipe Prista Lucas
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > >
       > > > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Y" <wop_groupmoderator@> wrote:
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > Just a little follow-up:
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > 1. The 1900 census listed William Fullingim (Jr) as born July 1879. The WWI draft registration lists him as born in 1880:
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > Name:  	Will Fullingim
       > > > > > > > County: 	Comanche
       > > > > > > > State: 	Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > Birth Date: 	4 Jul 1880
       > > > > > > > Race: 	White
       > > > > > > > FHL Roll Number: 	1851698
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > 2. There is no SSDI listing for Will Fullingim (the son).
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > 3. There are no 1860, 1870, or 1880 exact matches for William Fullingim.
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > 4. There is no marriage record on Ancestry.com, despite the Texas Marriage Index covering the years (1860 to 1909).
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > In other words, there is no evidence of this man's existence prior to the 1900 census--yet. While the story seems plausible (born 1855, married 1878 at 23, had son at 24 in 1879, etc.), with little room for age inflation, there is still the possibility of "identity-switching" as there is no SSDI record for the son's death.
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > Sincerely
       > > > > > > > Robert Young
       > > > > > > > Moderator
       > > > > > > > World's Oldest People
       > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Y" <wop_groupmoderator@> wrote:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Greetings,
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > This case is looking good. If verified, he would replace Auguste Pahl of Germany as the world's oldest person from March 6, 1965 until his own death, on Aug 6 1965.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > First, the SSDI listing:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Name:  	William Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > SSN: 	447-38-4700
       > > > > > > > > Last Residence: 	Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > > Born: 	7 Jul 1855
       > > > > > > > > Died: 	Aug 1965
       > > > > > > > > State (Year) SSN issued: 	Oklahoma (1955-1956)
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Next, the 1930 census:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > 1930 United States Federal Census
       > > > > > > > > Census & Voter Lists
       > > > > > > > > View Image
       > > > > > > > > Preview
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Home in 1930: 	Wichita, Comanche, Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > > Age: 	74
       > > > > > > > > Estimated birth year: 	abt 1856
       > > > > > > > > Birthplace: 	Texas
       > > > > > > > > Relation to Head of House: 	Head
       > > > > > > > > Spouse's name: 	Nannie
       > > > > > > > > Household Members:
       > > > > > > > > Name 	Age
       > > > > > > > > William A Fullingim 	74
       > > > > > > > > Nannie Fullingim 	69
       > > > > > > > > Will Fullingim 	50
       > > > > > > > > Mark Fullingim 	45
       > > > > > > > > Lyle T Fullingim 	22
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > View
       > > > > > > > > Original
       > > > > > > > > Record
       > > > > > > > > Take a look at the picture to see even more.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > See more
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Spouse: 	Nannie
       > > > > > > > > Birth: 	abt 1856 - Texas
       > > > > > > > > Residence: 	1930 - Wichita, Comanche, Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Note that someone born July 7, 1855 would be "74" in April 1930, so this backs it up.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Now, the 1920 census:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > 1920 United States Federal Census
       > > > > > > > > Census & Voter Lists
       > > > > > > > > View Image
       > > > > > > > > Preview
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Home in 1920: 	Wichita, Comanche, Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > > Age: 	64
       > > > > > > > > Estimated birth year: 	abt 1856
       > > > > > > > > Birthplace: 	Texas
       > > > > > > > > Relation to Head of House: 	Head
       > > > > > > > > Spouse's name: 	Nanie E
       > > > > > > > > Father's Birth Place: 	Alabama
       > > > > > > > > Mother's Birth Place: 	Alabama
       > > > > > > > > Marital Status: 	Married
       > > > > > > > > Race: 	White
       > > > > > > > > Sex: 	Male
       > > > > > > > > Home owned: 	Own
       > > > > > > > > Able to read: 	Yes
       > > > > > > > > Able to Write: 	Yes
       > > > > > > > > Image: 	1093
       > > > > > > > > Household Members:
       > > > > > > > > Name 	Age
       > > > > > > > > William A Fullingim 	64
       > > > > > > > > Nanie E Fullingim 	58
       > > > > > > > > William J Fullingim 	39
       > > > > > > > > John F Fullingim 	35
       > > > > > > > > Sollie Fullingim 	37
       > > > > > > > > Myrtle F Fullingim 	37
       > > > > > > > > Sile F Fullingim 	12
       > > > > > > > > Ruth Y Fullingim 	7
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > View
       > > > > > > > > Original
       > > > > > > > > Record
       > > > > > > > > Take a look at the picture to see even more.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > See more
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Spouse: 	Nanie E
       > > > > > > > > Birth: 	abt 1856 - Texas
       > > > > > > > > Residence: 	1920 - Wichita, Comanche, Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Again, someone born July 7, 1855 would be "64" (the actual listing on the full version) in January 1920. the "abt" 1856 comes from Ancestry.com
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Let's go back further:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > 1900 United States Federal Census
       > > > > > > > > Census & Voter Lists
       > > > > > > > > View Image
       > > > > > > > > Preview
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Home in 1900: 	Cloud Chief, Washita, Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > > Age: 	25
       > > > > > > > > Birth Date: 	Jul 1854
       > > > > > > > > Birthplace: 	Texas
       > > > > > > > > Race: 	White
       > > > > > > > > Gender: 	Male
       > > > > > > > > Relationship to Head of House: 	Head
       > > > > > > > > Father's Birthplace: 	Alabama
       > > > > > > > > Mother's Birthplace: 	Alabama
       > > > > > > > > Spouse's name: 	Nannie E
       > > > > > > > > Marriage Year: 	1878
       > > > > > > > > Marital Status: 	Married
       > > > > > > > > Years Married: 	22
       > > > > > > > > Residence : 	Cloud Chief Township (South Half), Washita, Oklahoma Territory
       > > > > > > > > Neighbors: 	View others on page
       > > > > > > > > Household Members:
       > > > > > > > > Name 	Age
       > > > > > > > > William A Fullingim 	45 (Ancestry.com errantly says "25"; the original image says 44 (crossed out) with "45" written over it.
       > > > > > > > > Nannie E Fullingim 	40
       > > > > > > > > William Fullingim 	20 (born in 1879)
       > > > > > > > > Frank Fullingim 	15
       > > > > > > > > Madge Fullingim 	8
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > View
       > > > > > > > > Original
       > > > > > > > > Record
       > > > > > > > > Take a look at the picture to see even more.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > See more
       > > > > > > > > Name: 	William A Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > Spouse: 	Nannie E
       > > > > > > > > Birth: 	Jul 1854 - Texas
       > > > > > > > > Birth: 	Texas
       > > > > > > > > More: 	See all information...
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > The 1900 census lists William A Fullingim as born July 1854, which would make him 111 instead (and replacing Elizabeth Kensley and Ellen Dart).
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Can we find an older match? There's also a minor issue, of the son having the same name as the father (William Jr), so we'll need to be certain this isn't a "double-life" case.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > By the way, the wife appeared also to be a centenarian, though the SSDI lists her as one year younger:
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Name:  	Nannie Fullingim
       > > > > > > > > SSN: 	447-38-4697
       > > > > > > > > Last Residence: 	Oklahoma
       > > > > > > > > Born: 	1 Nov 1861
       > > > > > > > > Died: 	Apr 1964
       > > > > > > > > State (Year) SSN issued: 	Oklahoma (1955-1956)
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > The 1900 census lists this couple as married in 1878, which could be 85 or 86 years.
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > Sincerely
       > > > > > > > > Robert Young
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "andrew860329" <andrewpholmes@> wrote:
       > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > Would anyone be able to look at this case again? He and his wife, Nancy Ellen Fullingim (1 Nov 1860-25 Apr 1964), allegedly celebrated their 84th wedding anniversary in August 1963, on top of a supercentenarian claim.
       > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > More information is given in this article: http://news.google.co.uk/newspapers?id=0rYeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bs8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6938,2106526
       > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > --- In Worlds_Oldest_People@yahoogroups.com, "athyon" <athyon@> wrote:
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > > Here's an article and an SSDI match of William Fullingim, who is
       > > > > > > > > > > said to have lived to age 110.
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > > W.A. Fullingim (Jul 7, 1855 - Aug 6, 1965)
       > > > > > > > > > > SSDI (William Fullingim - Jul 7, 1855 - Aug 1965) 447-38-4700
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > > The Daily Oklahoman - May 10, 1996
       > > > > > > > > > >
       > > > > > > > > > > Dear Abby
       > > > > > > > > > >   DEAR ABBY: When I read the letter from Polly Schrock asking about
       > > > > > > > > > > couples who had lived 100 years or longer, I had to write. Our
       > > > > > > > > > > friends and neighbors, who lived one mile from us for years, lived
       > > > > > > > > > > longer than that. W.A. Fullingim lived to be 110 years old. He was
       > > > > > > > > > > born July 7, 1855, in Mount Vernon, Texas, and died Aug. 6, 1965, in
       > > > > > > > > > > Lawton, OK. On his 100th birthday, I baked him a chiffon cake, and I
       > > > > > > > > > > subsequently baked him 11 more until his death. His wife, Nancy
       > > > > > > > > > > Ellen Fullingim,..."

Extremely sexy (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The census is a primary source, and a forum is unreliable. Are there any reliably secondary sources which describe their marriage as record breaking? Pburka (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
A quick Google source aims to be useful, but perhaps reliable sources are available offline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Color coding?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it possible too color code the current longest marriages..its hard looking down the list and trying to find which is the current..I see they do it on other lists like the oldest people.Bbonds775 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Mohyeddin

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

What record was set by their marriage? The reference says their marriage "lasted a long time", but doesn't indicate any record which would make it a "longest marriage". Pburka (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the entry. Pburka (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of people with the longest marriages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Veillard date

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Our sources give contradictory dates for the Veillard's wedding. [4] says "November 1932", [5] says "1932", [6] says "November 1932", but [7] says "November 29, 1934". The last one is the only one to give a precise date, but is two years off from the other sources. This means that the date in our table (1932-11-29) isn't actually reported in any of our sources. Pburka (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jacob Hiller and Sarah (Davys) Hiller

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

My great-great-great-great-grandparents, Jacob Hiller and Sarah (Davys) Hiller, should be #3 on this list. They originally came from Jamestown, Ontario, Canada, and later lived in Marine City, Michigan, USA, Emmet, Michigan, USA and finally Elkton, Michigan, USA. Their marriage lasted 87 years, 349 days, from their wedding on April 25, 1810 until Sarah's death on April 9, 1898, a world record that stood for nearly 108 years, until Feb. 2, 2006, when it was beaten by K. Philipose Thomas and Sosamma Thomas, whose marriage only survived 18 days longer than the Hillers'. Their long marriage was covered widely in 1897-1898, in newspapers across the United States and Canada.

In the article "OLD MICHIGAN COUPLE" (The Daily Republican, Monongahela, Pennsylvania, Tuesday, January 26, 1897, p. 3), Jacob Hiller is quoted as saying, "We will be keeping house 87 years the 25th of next April." This establishes their wedding date as April 25, 1810.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/52831482

In the article "Aged Couple Separated by Death" (The Worthington Advance, Worthington, Minnesota, Thursday, April 14, 1898, p. 6), it was reported with the byline "Detroit, Mich., April 11," "Probably the oldest married couple in Michigan was parted by death Saturday morning at Elkton, Mich., when Mrs. Jacob Hiller, aged 107 years, died." The previous Saturday was April 9, 1898.

https://www.newspapers.com/image/192568180

I don't know how to edit the HTML on this page, but if someone could add them, I would appreciate it. SaintStephen71 (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well: thanks for pointing all this out, but according to https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/171208986 she died one day earlier, and had just turned 106 (instead of 107) at the time with her surname being written as "Davey" (by yourself somewhere else) and "Davy" (over there) as well, while he died 15 months later at almost 110 according to https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/171208933, being David Jacob Hiller in full, but also written as "Hillier" (in the article mentioned) and even "Hillar" (for a daughter apparently), plus I will try to add them in due course. Extremely sexy (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
http://www.sandisullivan.com/getperson.php?personID=I2355&tree=Tree also says all this, so it is just 17 days shy of 88 years, or 87 years and 348 days, plus a son (Truman Hiller) passed away at age 98 (1815-1913): http://www.sandisullivan.com/getperson.php?personID=I32800&tree=Tree Extremely sexy (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Add date of latest report and marital status at latest report

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This list would be a lot more helpful with a couple of extra columns:

Cleanup tag

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've commented out the other marriage entries that haven't been scrubbed before. These would need to be validated with multiple papers and articles that claim their long marriage is notable. I also marked and will remove fairly weak claims (a local paper or blog website) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Changing the article's scope to be about list of people in long marriages

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

I discussed changing the article's scope with Sandstein, the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the longest marriages (2nd nomination) as "delete", so that I could restore the list to mainspace in a form that does not violate Wikipedia:No original research ("the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages"). I revised the article draft by changing the inclusion criteria from "marriages which have been reported as setting records for length" to "list of people in long marriages". I also added a background section about long marriages.

Pinging "keep" participants Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), Lubbad85 (talk · contribs), Schetm (talk · contribs), and Doncram (talk · contribs). Do you have any suggestions or improvements to the draft we can make so that the article is less likely to be deleted if it is renominated for deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I moved the draft to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
How will this list be manageable? The criteria no longer even require that there be a record—simply that the marriage be long. The background section suggests that "long" could mean 50 years. Surely there are thousands of such marriages, if not tens of thousands. Pburka (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I have added the sentence "The list includes only people who have been married for at least 80 years" per my comment here. Currently, every single entry on that list meets this more restrictive inclusion criteria, which will keep the list manageable. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is completely inappropriate. Getting the closing admin to say "I wouldn't personally mind if a different article were created", then recreating the same article with a different title, and pinging in all the keep !voters from the AFD is ... I can't see how anyone would think this appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Note that no effort was made to comply with Sandstein's suggestion: this is the sum total of edits made to the article between when it was undeleted and draftified, and at no point was any attempt made to remove the OR and dodgy sourcing from the deleted article. This makes the above pinging of all the editors who said "keep the article in spite of the sourcing" and deliberately not pinging me and the other editors who had noted the bad sourcing seem all the fishier. When there is a consensus of the community to delete an article because of it's apparently-terminally-bad sourcing and, even despite leading questions, the closing admin noted that their reasoning had been based on the failure of the "keep" !voters to adequately address, in my view, the "delete" side's arguments that the existing or proposed sources do not allow the creation of a verifiable, non-OR list of longest marriages, you can't just say "Well, what if we restored all the poorly sourced contents and invite opinions from only those editors who already said they didn't care about the poor sourcing?" Might as well rectify the problem by pinging everyone else whose opinions were steamrolled by this somewhat slimy and backhanded action: @Newshunter12, Pburka, Slatersteven, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Randykitty, SportingFlyer, Reyk, and Mothman: Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I didn't canvass you -- I asked for your opinions on your being steamrolled by this cloak-and-dagger, exclusionist behaviour that completely ignores our arguments in the original AFD -- the same way Cunard and the other "keep" !voters ignored them during the AFD. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know that and I don't like this furtive behaviour either. But I've also learned that if there's anything this lot likes almost as much as unsourced trivia, it's hypocritical accusations. Reyk YO! 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but then they appear to think it's hypocritical for me to accuse them of canvassing while in the same breath pinging a bunch of users who agree with me. If they like such hypocritical accusations, and they sincerely believe I was making a hypocritical accusation, then they should surely thank me for indulging them, shouldn't they? :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see any more reason to keep this, at the end of the day what is A "long marriage"? Its just an arbitrary number plucked out of the air, you might as well say 70 years or 100 years. Yes (by the way) pinging only a few selected edds is canvasing (that is to say the first instance, it is not canvasing to fill in the gaps).Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Lists are not (and should not be) a get around notability, if the subject is not notable enough for an article its doubtful they have a place on a list here either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC) And as if to demonstrate this, source one "The present study involves a nonrandom sample of 351 couples who have been married 15 years or more.", so this tells us nothing about marriages over 80 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hijiri 88 Thank you for righting this underhanded move by keep voters to only notify themselves that this is back. I agree that it's entirely inappropriate to just recreate this article with a different title without really changing the true nature or scope of this article. Now that that dodgy list has been rightly removed, the present article is a complete joke. Wikipedia is not a marriage advice guide and this is just more WP:SYNTH. Do we need to go through a whole new AfD or is there a quicker way to undo this mess? Newshunter12 (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Technically, the new article is a junk stub on a loosely related topic. I don't think I could muster the motivation to actively !vote to delete it, since going to the effort of determining whether this topic is notable (essentially trying to prove a negative) is a lot harder than looking at the previous SYNTH disaster and saying we can't keep it. I don't know if anything can be done with this article to improve it beyond its current state; it could be boldly redirected, or speedied per G4 (the original article before I blanked the offending content was a blatant G4, and I have no problem with the garbage stub that exists now that I've "fixed it" being deleted -- if anyone does have a problem with it, they'd probably also have a problem with the fixing itself). If Cunard engages in any more disruption like the above (it's clear he had no intention of ever actually doing any more work in fixing the article, since he waited a week and apparently thought it was good enough to be moved back into the mainspace), the proper dispute resolution procedures should be followed. If you want to have a debate over whether "long marriages" is a notable topic, AFD is the place to go (that was not really debated, much less resolved, at the previous AFD), but I don't think I'll be joining you; I would support speedy-deleting this page or re-draftifying it, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, do you think a new AfD on WP:NOPAGE grounds would make the most sense, where we could hopefully get speedy-delete votes (and maybe salt if we can) to end this quickly? I know it's tiresome, but it would be best to deal with this now instead of letting editors like Cunard rebuild this list. We know it's only a matter of time until they try. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I've put this back into mainspace but require that entries placed there have some thorough notable sources, worldwide recognition for "longest marriage". If it is just a claim, it should be deleted, as per the standards for List of oldest people AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_long_marriages/Archive_2&oldid=968239851"