Talk:List of long marriages/Archive 1

UK claim to 211+
http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED28%20Jun%202007%2000%3A06%3A30%3A400

104-year-old's birthday celebrations 28 June 2007 | 11:06 CRAIG ROBINSON Kathleen Hazell IN 1903 Edward VII was King of England, Britain still had an Empire and Orville Wright flew the first aircraft with a petrol engine over in the USA.

And it was also the year that Felixstowe resident Kathleen Hazell was born and yesterday she celebrated her 104th birthday.

The centenarian - whose husband Frank died last year aged 107 - was joined by her son-in-law, David Fill, and staff from St Mary's Nursing Home, in Undercliffe Road East, Felixstowe, where she now lives.

Mr Fill, whose wife Daphne - Mrs Hazell's only child - died last year, said: “Considering my mother-in-law is 104 she is in quite good health. There are one or two problems but I would say she's fairly physically fit.

“Obviously, her husband lived to a good age but I'm not really sure what you could put it down to.

“They always said it was the fact they never drove but walked and cycled everywhere. They never drank any alcohol either.

“They moved to Felixstowe in 1966 and I know they really loved the area and breathing in the sea air.

“Kathleen is very fond of the sea and used to enjoy swimming in it regularly - in fact I think she was still dong it in her late 90s.”

Choppy Margetts, who works at St Mary's and looks after Mrs Hazell, added: “She doesn't look her age - you'd think she was in her 80s. She walks with a frame but she can potter along and is still relatively independent.” 72.152.95.211 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

+80
Józefa i Stanisław Janczakowie, Poland http://www.tvp.info/news.html?directory=132&news=755115 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacek downey (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proof of this and from when exactly? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oldest combined age of married couple while both still alive?
Would make for a good section.. BoxingNut (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas and Elizabeth Morgan claim debunked
Ryoung 122 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Green background
Can we add a "green" background to those couples claims that are believed to be active (i.e., both persons still living)? Ryoung 122 13:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Numerous claims
SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter & Celestia Peterson
 * Salus & Minnie Newquest
 * Perry & Katharina Sullens
 * Ward & Cynthia McDaniel
 * Lee Hoon-yo & Kim Bong-geum
 * Oney & Edna Hartner
 * William & Nancy Fullingim
 * Ole & Otilia Sholberg
 * George & Germaine Briant
 * Mitch & Mattie Atkins
 * JD & Opal Conger
 * George Yamasaki & Shigeyo Fujitani
 * Marshall & Winnie Kuykendall (living)
 * Philip & Rafaela Caprio

Page superfluous?
The article has alot of couples listed. I think we need to have a cutoff point. Here's my suggestions as to what we should display: --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Top 20 oldest married couples ever
 * Seperate list of all living couples
 * Top 10 oldest for "The highest combined ages of married couples (>210 when both have died)"
 * Seperate list of all living widow(ers)
 * I think there does need to be a change - but please consider other options before changing. While making the list of oldest twins, I realised that we don't know enough at 100+ to be able to give an accurate article. There are probably many (mainly at 100) who were not known about, or who have not been found out about yet. The same goes for this page: we've been finding more and more. I would like to see a list at 82 years+, and keep all >210 until we get a better idea of the bigger picture. I agree with having a separate list of all living couples (80+), but I don't see the need for a list of widow(er)s. They might be something to bear in mind for the '210 list', but I think that should be on the talk page. SiameseTurtle (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick has done this without consent though, so I'm going to revert all his changes. 62.235.131.136 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WHY ARE THESE TWO CLAIMS STUCK TOGETHER???
3 	Sir Temulji Bhicaji Nariman Lady Nariman Lazarus Rowe Molly Weber Rowe 	1848 - 1940 1848 - ? ? - ? ? - 1829 	1853 1743 	>86 years 	 India Greenland, New Hampshire, United States 	[5]

It doesn't matter if the claimed time is identical (tie), these still count as TWO claims. Therefore the claim immediately after these two should be ranked 5th, not 4th. Ryoung 122 05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, Robert: I'll fix it. 62.235.151.79 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Misc
I've worked on the page - I Hope you like it. ;) Do you now some couples more? But we need some information perhaps somebody can help. Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Yang Wan
Is she still alive? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Marguerite Pingaud
Is she still alive? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Gan and Huang Fu
Are they still alive? Birth- and deathdates? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

James Burgess and Sarah Ann
Marriad-, birth- and deathdates? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Temulji Nairman
Have anybody more information about? Birth- and Deathdates? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Bessie Pennebaker
Is she still alive? Birhdate? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Katharina Nikolaus
We need her birthdate. Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Gilbert Hill and Sadie E. Longmoor
http://www.ifilivetobe100.com/html/profiles/hill/index.htm Birth- and deathdates of Gilbert Hill? Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Robert D. Fitch Sr. and Florence L. Fitch
It's from teh netherland-wiki. We need a sources to confirm. Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET)

Martin and Christina Terry
It's from teh netherland-wiki. We need a sources to confirm. Statistician 07.02.2007 16:10 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statistician (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Living couples
A couple to look out for:

Frank & Anita Milford (Report was in February, they were to celebrate their 80th anniversary in May) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article748471.ece

Ralph & Phyllis Tarrant (Current combined age of 205) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1668091.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
While this article is an interesting read, there's a few issues that should be addressed. I've broken it up into issues that concern the whole article and specific section.

General

 * The article is a mixture of three different categories, only one of which really matches the title of longest marriages.
 * Much of the sourcing is good, though other Wikpedias are not considered reliable sources. Any entry citing another Wikimedia project should be removed or have a citation from a primary source.

Section 1: "Highest age of married couples"

 * The section is a rather odd category that addressed the couple's age rather than the duration of their marriage. This doesn't seem to fit the article and this section should probably be removed.
 * This section gives the impression that the couples have been married for over 200 years which is clearly not the case as most of them have barely lived over 100. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.139 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Section 2: "> 80 years"

 * This section is more in line with the article's title, though it's really a "very long marriages" section rather than a definitive list of the longest marriage. The cutoff of "> 80 years" is pretty much arbitrary. I think this section would be better as a "Top X" list where the top 5 or 10 longest marriages were listed.
 * A number of entries in this section are sourced to nl.wikipedia and should be removed or have better citations.

Section3: "60-80 years"

 * The final section is a list of fairly long marriages that are seem to be chosen arbitrarily. The lengths of these marriage don't fit the "longest" criteria (I personally know three marriages that could beat couples in this list") and essentially are various notable people with rather long marriages. I'm not sure how this section could be brought in line with the article's title.
 * Very few of these are sourced.

I think this is a case of "more is less" where cutting the article down to its core focus would greatly improve it. ChazBeckett 13:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can deleted the "60-80 years"-Section. But in with categorie we should put the "Highest age of married couples" - I think this shouldn't be lost. Statistician 06.03.2007 13:04 (CET)

I o some research - know only two are from the netherland-wiki. I need time to confirm them so please dont't delte them. Statistician 06.03.2007 14:05 (CET)

I'd like to see it kept. The difference between this section and >80 years is that I don't recognize 1 name in the latter. Perhaps we should call it "Notable marriages 60 to 80". If it gets to be too long, it can always go to 70 to 80. Leon7 07:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have liked to have retained notable long marriages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter#Personal_life Salopian (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well in my own space I have Long celebrity marriages. This list does have two people noted for things other than longevity: Joseph M. Juran and Russell Jump. Still I wonder if we could expand it to marriages over 70 years without getting too long. Eh probably we couldn't.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are also various extremely long marriages documented in the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Right? Could we at least mention some of them?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.149.100 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, because they honestly can't be proven at all. Extremely sexy 15:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Russell Jump?
I know celebrities are largely irrelevant here, but former Wichita mayor Russell Jump was apparently married for81 years and their combined age at her death would've been 205 if I read it right. Worth a mention?--T. Anthony (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be unreasonable to mention the longest marriages of famous people, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Linkletter#Personal_life -- after all, there is a list of oldest famous people as well as oldest people in general. Salopian (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some from my own list to the article Hollywood marriage. We'll see if it fits or works.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Marriages of 79 years added too
I added those too, but I have been reverted three times though: anyone against? 62.235.154.196 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nick Ornstein reverted again without replying over here: that's "not done" really. 62.235.158.206 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 79 years isn't necessary, it's just more work. Being rounded to 80 is reasonable. And I just updated the rankings: "done". --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, both Kuykendalls are definitely still alive, and then I will make a separate chapter though for those few other marriages, if you don't mind that is. 62.235.145.231 (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you know if you don't have the source!?!? Their last report was from 2007/2008. You can't say that they are alive. That would be OR. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact they are not in the SSDI (yet) and these sources over here as well: http://twitter.com/BrianGandy/status/9072148512/http://twitter.com/BrianGandy/status/9068657932/http://twitter.com/BrianGandy/status/9054644490. 62.235.155.209 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter is NOT a reliable source. But I can see where you are coming from, certainly. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by that? 62.235.155.209 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Twitter is unreliable. I know the update is from there, but it can't be used here. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tough luck for you. 62.235.131.63 (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Names
IP user, please state your opinion. If you aren't saying anything, then the article should remain the way I did it. You aren't defending as to why you disagree or not. You are simply saying that you don't want me to "mess up your work". Look, I've done plenty of work here as well. If somebody has a dispute about my edits, I talk it over. You should do the same.

Here is my opinion on names by gender/country:
 * Females: Full first name, maiden name (if married with "née"), then last name.
 * Males: Full first name, then last name (if the man changed his last name to his spouse, use "né").
 * Country: Follow criteria with proper name, but remove middle name (unless it is proper to add their middle).

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But I really don't understand at all why you deleted all the important information I added regarding their current residence or place of death, and those middle names are important in order to avoid confusion. 62.235.141.52 (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't need exact place, it's not like we are going to go to their exact residence. All that is needed is country, similar to many other articles on Longevity template. How are we supposed to know their maiden name when it can be confused with their middle name, "nee" or "ne" is more necessary. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The middle names are necessary for establishing that we have the correct person, f.e. if Nick Ornstein (yes: you, of all people) dies and there are records of a Nick A. Ornstein, but also of a Nick E. Ornstein it would be of great help if we knew with whom of the two we were dealing. 62.235.156.204 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that if an article has someone's name as "Joe" for instance, it should remain as is. We shouldn't add Jo(s)e(ph) in parentheses due to it being OR. Let's get this problem solved, I want this war to end. I will agree with you on adding middle names, but we don't add a longer name of a nickname that isn't stated in the SSDI, obituary, nor the article. I'm thinking just keeping the state/province/territory etc. rather than their city of residence. And for females maiden names, just put it in parentheses - this applies to other articles on Wikipedia, "née" or "né" is optional. The sources on here need to be cited properly (I will take care of that). Putting it in parentheses helps to not get the middle and maiden name confused. Any disputes, IP? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you choose a better example and show a little maturity? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IP user, I am awaiting your response on what I think seems necessary. Beg to differ? --Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Frederick Bakeman & Susan Brewer Bakeman
This case is added without a prove (like some other cases) because they are on a page. Think about that - if the claimed date of birth are true - he was nearly 13, she nearly 15... But the censuses of 1850 and 1830 look more like that they where younger, him born around 1761/62. Daniel Frederick Bakeman (9 Oct. 1759? - 5 Apr. 1869= & Susan Brewer Bakeman (2 Jan. 1758? - 10 Sept. 1863), marriage 29 August 1772? => http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/5275638/person/-1367443863 --Statistician (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course later Census matches are going to be off by several years (at most). If you could locate Dan, Susan, or both in the 1750 Census, you would probably obtain the most accurate information, due to it being the closest Census to when they were born. In my opinion, they should remain on the page until further notice. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean the 1760 Census (that is if they had been born already), since 1750 is even earlier, and the USA wasn't established until 1776, so there weren't any Censuses before 1780. 62.235.143.137 (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no prove that the claim age or date of marriage is correct so they shouldn't on the page - and think about the fact that 1772 looks to early. --Statistician (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't assume these things. The fact is that the closer the census is to one's birth, the more accurate their birth date is. Take Eunice Sanborn for instance. She claimed to have been born in 1895 but census records from 1900 indicate that she was born in 1896 (Right now she is the oldest in the world as of today). My statement above is what many longevity experts of the GRG, if not all, would say, because they would know. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I work with GRG and when we take the GRG standards we can't count this couple. The age in older censuses go down, so it looks that there age is exaggerated and with that the date of the marriage. When he was born 1761/62 he would be 10 years old at his marriage. Perhaps he was some years younger. Do you realy believe that??? --Statistician (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Back in 1600s/1500s/earlier/later, kids got married very young, sometimes around 10, some likely younger. Of course the Bakeman's had lived a long time ago. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That's correct but there is still no prove that they married in 1772. You add all claims but if we did that with SCs we had a lot of false claims on the list. It looks like that some persons like to have some possible false cases on this list... --Statistician (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Karam and Kartari Chand
New living record: "Karam Chand and his wife Kartari from Bradford have been married for 86 years, reportedly making them Britain's longest married couple", according to http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2785958.ece --Oneiros (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've used the article on the BBC to add Karam and Kartari Chand. The article dated 7th January 2012 says "They wed in a typical Sikh ceremony in 1925 and have just celebrated their 86th year together as a married couple". A marriage in Jan 1925 would make it 87 years, so 'just celebrated' suggests the marriage was in December. Other references, e.g. Daily Mail seem to have taken the report date as the marriage date which would contradict 86 years. Of course, it's possible the BBC have made a simple mistake thinking it's still 2011 Macgroover (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But still very improbable though. 62.235.187.2 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is about situations that are improbable by definition. And the guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: WP:VNT Macgroover (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken, and so I added them. 62.235.146.34 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

79 years of marriage
It doesn't seem to make sense by adding couples that aren't living that have been married 79 years. The rest aren't going to be added if the minimal criteria is 80 years. Just keep living couples. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few very close calls are amongst them. 62.235.129.153 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel & Charlotte Hughes
Charlotte and Noel Hughes are a good example what happens if you add not validated datas from newspapers: The claimed age of Noel Hughes was 103 (died around 1980) but in the England Death Index you can find one who died in 1979 in Cleveland Country (where Charlotte Hughes died in 1993) but this Noel was born in 23. Dec. 1892. So without prove we can count them with a combinated age of 218 years because now it looks like that the had a combinated age of 201 or 2002 years... --Statistician (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted them though. 62.235.150.136 (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Validation?
Btw.: We have a lot of not validated cases. Which cases are validated (and by whom) and which are only claims? And why are not validated cases added? --Statistician (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I marked some unvalidated cases. Someone know it the other cases all are validated? Can please someone also mark the not validated cases as not Unverified? --Statistician (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is original research. Besides, why do we need to validate couples, it is supposed to be supercentenarians. The GRG doesn't obtain a bunch of documents by couples married 80 years under 110. How can you just assume these things? Revert back. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We will work on validating couples and some of them are clearly validated. So please don't add the not validated cases as validated. That's not scientifical - or to you realy want a fairytail page abput long marriages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.75.126 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Some persons always put the disputed, validated and not validated cases together - so no interet in a scientific correct list? So this page shpuld be renamed in "List of people with longest marriages myths". --Statistician (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We're listing all cases. 62.235.160.251 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability
What establishes the notability of this topic? I tagged the entry a couple of days ago and would like to know if someone can source the notability of this topic. If not, I will take this to AfD, but I don't want to do so before giving you all a chance to discuss this first. Cheers. Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of iffy about total non-notability. Very long marriages are rare and there are usually sources to back them (in at least one, and sometimes two, obits), but I'm certain that this is trivial nonsense. David in DC (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been two months since I indicated that aggregating the ages of long-married couples and listing them as some kind of record is trivial nonsense. It's non-notable. Despite two months of silence, I'll take one last shot before deleting. Has someone got a policy-based reason why this belongs in a wikipedia article? David in DC (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See the coverage in the press. Yes, it is clearly notable. No, it is not nonsense. Marriage is a key institution in societies around the world. Shajure (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * specific coverage of listing of longest marriages. Shajure (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But still very difficult to prove in fact. 62.235.160.251 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sobieskis
This couple has not been mentioned here before: Times Union, The (Albany, NY) - January 5, 1997

LOVE STANDS 80-YEAR TEST OF TIME SCHENECTADY -- Cupid's arrow was a bull's eye in the marriage of Genevieve and Edmund Sobieski. The couple celebrate their 80th wedding anniversary this month.Edmund, who was born in Poland in 1893, will turn 104 on March 1. Genevieve, a Schenectady native, will be 101 on March 9. The two met at a dance in October 1916. Three months later, on Jan. 13, 1917, they took their marriage vows. He was already four years into his career as a machinist for the... Purchase Complete Article, of 681 words 95.112.218.159 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the good hint. 62.235.187.60 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

79 years of marriage
It doesn't seem to make sense by adding couples that aren't living that have been married 79 years. The rest aren't going to be added if the minimal criteria is 80 years. Just keep living couples. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few very close calls are amongst them. 62.235.129.153 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing couples older than the Guinness World Record holders
The list is starting to accumulate a number a number of unvalidated claims at the top of the table. The oldest couple that has sufficient documentation was Herbert and Zelmyra Fisher, and Guinness recognises them as the world's oldest ever married couple: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/longest-marriage-/

I feel like we're giving a lot of weight to unvalidated claims, and the true cases are being lost in the mix. If someone were to look at this article, they'd immediately assume that the couple at #1 were the oldest ever, but there's no evidence of that.

So I personally think we should remove claims (living or not) older than whichever couple is officially recognised as the oldest. Thoughts? SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you read the previous subject though? 62.235.132.173 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no standard here. No verification of the oldest marriage - In the world, and nothing to verifiy it? A neswpaper is not valid information. PershingBoy 76.11.140.229 (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

79 years of marriage
It doesn't seem to make sense by adding couples that aren't living that have been married 79 years. The rest aren't going to be added if the minimal criteria is 80 years. Just keep living couples. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few very close calls are amongst them. 62.235.129.153 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside Source Validation?
Guinness World Records excludes cases of "child marriage". What age someone is a "child" or an "adult" is, however, subject to interpretation.

The Daniel Bakeman claim to age "109" is suspect, as is his claim to be married 91 years and to have been a Revolutionary War veteran. Indeed, although he received a late-life pension (financial motivation for fraud), there was no evidence of his war service (a "red flag"). 69.15.219.71 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

India kiddie marriages sometime occurred when both party's were 3 or 4 years old. Some of those couples were married 90-100 years. What you have to separate is the kiddie marriages that are arranged by parents and marriages when both party's were legal adults. To be a longest marriage where both party's were adults and living together as man and wife. you have to have a minimum age of adult where in most country's both party's are 18 or older at the time of marriage. 68.58.119.97 (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

79 years of marriage
It doesn't seem to make sense by adding couples that aren't living that have been married 79 years. The rest aren't going to be added if the minimal criteria is 80 years. Just keep living couples. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few very close calls are amongst them. 62.235.129.153 (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Highest combined ages of married couples (≥210 years when both have died)
Remark: Guinness counts only the highest combined age of both persons living at the same time, not the combined maximum age of both persons. If the point of the record is "as a couple", not an individual, then the "oldest couple" is NOT the same as the maximum age of both persons, or, in other words, the time of having been a widow(er) is in that case excluded.