Talk:Bernice Madigan

---

Notability

As the subject is the oldest verified living person in the state of Massachusetts, as well as the fifth oldest verified living person in the entire world, she unambiguously meets WP:BASIC requirements for notability. Taurus (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish! As with many supercentenarian articles she fails WP:1E. She is younger than Susannah Mushatt Jones, whose article was recently deleted, and has no other form of notability to justify an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're citing precedent, then the fact that all but three of the ten oldest verified living people in the world have their own articles is equally pertinent. Perhaps you should be arguing that Susannah Mushatt Jones' article shouldn't have been deleted. The issue you raise seems to rest on the question of whether or not the ten oldest living human beings on the face of the earth should each have an article about their individual lives and the attendant various media coverage? Given the countless biographical articles here, and the persistent, universal level of global popular interest in details of the individual lives of the oldest members of the human species (the sheer volume of media coverage of such personal details, from print to television and beyond, cannot be overstated), the answer seems to be unambiguously "yes." WP:1E applies to these individuals as much as it applies to any person whose fame and notability is predicate on one and only one aspect of their lives (eg their job, etc). Your criticism is a result of a misinterpretation of WP:1E; this rule is explicitly concerned with a single event, not a single quality or aspect in any individual life. Supercentenarians are not notable due to a single event; their notability is derived from the unique status they have among the human species due to a combination of special temporal and biological aspects of their lives. Whether they "should" have individual articles or not, WP:1E does not apply, and some other criterion must be used to justify deletion. Taurus (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the top 10 well-documented people for longevity worldwide should be listed - the fact that they've made it that long should be enough to add them to Wikipedia. Bernie also has plenty of documentation to confirm her age. Lauriemann (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Lauriemann

Additionaly, I urge anyone who believes the article subject does not meet notability guidelines should *actually read* WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It's also worth mentioning that 8 sources for an article in which no statement or assertion lacks citation is sufficient and adheres to WP:BLP. Taurus (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susannah Mushatt Jones I believe at the time this section was started Bernice had no more claim to notability than Jones and there was clear consensus that she was insufficiently notable to have an article. As both are now on the List of the verified oldest women I believe that makes them sufficiently notable (though I suspect others might disagree). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The handful of individuals who voted for deletion in the above discussion based their decisions on a fundamental misinterpretation of WP:1E; a man who leads police on a car chase and receives attention from multiple media outlets is a case of WP:1E. Supercentenarians, on the other hand, are notable for being supercentenarians, something which should be clearly elucidated by the fact that they have an article about their existence. Likewise, a Medal of Honor recipient is notable for being a Medal of Honor recipient, and WP:1E would be equally misapplied. The argument that justified the deletion of the above mentioned article would seem to justify the deletion of each of the articles on the List of living Medal of Honor recipients. To my knowledge, every single Medal of Honor recipient, living or dead, has their own article (there are over 3,000 such articles). Here's an example; List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Spanish–American War. There are numerous other examples of WP:BLP to which the same misinterpretation of WP:1E could be applied, such as List of astronauts by name (there are nearly 600 individual articles; many of these individuals have never even left Low Earth orbit). Considering common practice, bearing in mind WP:N, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," and WP:BLP, it is hard to the come to the conclusion that the above article's deletion was anything other than a mistake. Taurus (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

"Longevity Milestones"

For the record, I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the former section "Longevity Milestones" clearly violated WP:TRIVIA, however it is equally clear that it did not violate WP:V. As such, I would suggest that whoever originally added the section could incorporate the listed information into the article in a way that does not violate WP:TRIVIA. Taurus (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The section unambiguously failed WP:V as it contained absolutely no citations. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 15:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. While no inline citations were present, the material was verifiable by means of the first listed reference, technically meeting WP:GENREF criteria; "...a general references section may exist even though no inline citations at all have yet been added, especially when all article content is supported by a single source. The disadvantage of using general references alone is that text–source integrity is lost, unless the article is very short." Taurus (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:GENREF ≠ WP:V. GENREF is a guideline while V is a policy. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything that adheres to WP:GENREF citation guidelines necessarily adheres to WP:V policy. Taurus (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a more detailed discussion at Talk:Misao Okawa. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 05:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually in full agreement with the standard that you and DerbyCountyinNZ are seeking to apply to this article (and evidently those of other supercentenarians). I agree that a "longevity milestones" list violates WP:TRIVIA because, as Canadian_Paul points out in the other case, it takes the form of a list. However, any text that actually adheres to WP:GENREF guidelines is necessarily verifiable and does not violate WP:V. The information included in the aforementioned "Milestones" did not violate WP:V at the time of its inclusion despite the lack of inline inline citations (which are not mandated by policy) and would seem appropriate if integrated into the body of the article. Taurus (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please list here (yes, I see the irony) the milestones and the citations which specifically mention them. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You can view the section yourself [1]. All of the facts listed under "Longevity Milestones" are verifiable in the first reference [2] per WP:GENREF as mentioned in my comments above. Taurus (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the "milestones" has a reference which is acceptable. There is no citation specifically mentioning that Madigan had become one of the 10 oldest people, no citation specifically mentioning that she had become the oldest white person in America and no citation specifically mentioning that she had become the oldest white person in the world. These are all merely references to a list and anything inferred from that is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact that each statement listed in the aforementioned "Longevity Milestones" is unambiguously verifiable in the first reference, which lists the birth and death dates as well as the race of every evidently "verified" supercentenarian in the world (going back to deaths in 1999)[3], it's obvious that they are not directly stated by an independent source. If policy is explicitly clear on this matter, I'd appreciate an analogous example. It does seems odd to quibble over the inclusion of facts that are verifiable (WP:V) merely because they are laid out as data in matrices rather than in sentence structure. Nevertheless, I'm amenable to the suggestion that they violate WP:SYNTH/WP:OR merely because these facts can only be verified by inference rather than direct, quotable statement. Taurus (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ that the former section "Longevity Milestones" clearly violated WP:TRIVIA. I'm amenable to the suggestion that they violate WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Why is this discussion continuing? The fact that the section violated any one policy is enough for it to be removed, and you have just agreed that you think it violated three. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 21:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As I made clear at the outset, I have never disagreed over the removal of the section (it violated WP:TRIVIA because it was a "list"); the rest of the sentence you quoted reads "As such, I would suggest that whoever originally added the section could incorporate the listed information into the article in a way that does not violate WP:TRIVIA." The discussion could have ended there. The rest is about whether that actually can be incorporated into body of the article without violating additional policies (a not unimportant issue). I contend:

The section violated WP:TRIVIA because it is in the form of a "list". The information could still be incorporated into the body of the article if the information does not violate WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. It is not clear to me that it does in fact violate WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. If the length of the discussion bothers you (it's fine with me), then it would seem you should consider that the next time you decide to continue it; it's not surprising that the same discussion at Talk:Misao Okawa became equally lengthy. Taurus (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to make this personal. This is about the content in the article, not about my editing habits. Of the three milestones,

• December 17, 2012, Dina Manfredini died. Madigan became one of the ten oldest living people in the world.
• March 21, 2013, Elsie Thompson died. Madigan became the oldest white American.
• April 2, 2013, Maria Redaelli died. Madigan became the oldest white person in the world.

I don't think the first one is needed since the fifth oldest living person in the world. is already listed in the article. The 3rd milestone outweighs the 2nd, so is it even necessary to list the 2nd? And the 3rd is fine as long as it is referenced. — JJJ ^{(say hello)} 14:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And the 3rd one cannot be referenced by citing the GRG list of oldest people and looking for the oldest white person. That is synthesis. There needs to be another source saying "Bernice Madigan is (now) the oldest white person in the world". And frankly I don't think that specifying people by race is particularly likely or, given Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable, constructive as far as wiki is concerned. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has made this personal or specifically discussed anyone else's editing habits. I agree that the first statement is superfluous. I am not convinced that citing GRG is WP:SYNTH, but unless I can find more clarity on the issue, I concede that it's best to find some other reference. Ethnicity is important in the context of gerentological and genomic research. Also, see Wikipedia:Ethnicity is important. Taurus (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't want to drag this out too much more but...Wikipedia:Ethnicity is important is an essay, not a policy or guideline (as stated in the box at the top of the essay). In fact it was a reply to Wikipedia:Ethnicity is not notable which is equally valid. And while it is important to the GRG (and other similar bodies), wiki is not the GRG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"See Also" section

On July 7, DerbyCountyinNZ's edit of [4] included unexplained removal of the "See Also" section, by creating new inline links within the body of the article. It is true that the same inline links are precluded from appearing in a See Also section, but this is only because they were moved from this section by the same single editor in the first place. This article has had a See Also section with relevant links throughout much of its existence (see history); these articles include all associated lists on which the article subject is present. This would appear to be an ideal use of the section, and seems preferable to an article body in which single sentences are cluttered by multiple inline links (which is not common practice). Blacksun1942 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that the statements that Madigan is "third-oldest living person in the United States", "the world's fourth oldest living person" and "among the 100 oldest people ever" are not supproted by appropriate citations (as the GRG source violates WP:PRIMARY) I thought it would be more appropriate to link to the appropriate wiki page rather than start adding {{citation needed}} tags. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If the GRG is acceptable as a primary source from which to construct entire articles, such as List of the verified oldest people (explicitly stated within the body of the article), then I'm wondering why you think that using it as a source for the aforementioned statements is a violation of WP:PRIMARY? Neither the creation of said list, nor the basic descriptions of source material are violations of WP:PRIMARY. I'm also not sure why you think that linking to another Wikipedia article is an acceptable replacement if you feel that a citation is needed, especially when the article to which you link relies on nothing more than the same source? Could you explain your use of {{citation needed}} tags? Blacksun1942 (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know why you think that "the oldest living resident of Massachusetts" does not warrant a {{citation needed}} tag, but "the third-oldest living person in United States" and "the world's fourth-oldest living person" do? How exactly are the latter two statements specifically unsupported by the GRG source in a way that differs from the first statement? As above, it's worth emphasizing that the final statement, "and is among the 100 verified oldest people ever," (which you edited into an inline link), points to List of the verified oldest people which lists the GRG as its only source. Blacksun1942 (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I saw this listed at Third Opinion, where I'm a regular volunteer, but I'm not writing here wearing my volunteer hat, but just as another garden-variety editor. I've left the request pending at 3O, though some other volunteer may remove it due to the Third Opinion Paradox. Whether or not GRG is a reliable source is a matter of some considerable controversy (see mainly here, but also here, and here, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if the matter has been discussed elsewhere as well). Personally, I would argue that since the material in GNG's lists is provided and validated by GNG's own correspondents (see here), the problem is not that it is a primary source (which it is, but primary sources are not absolutely forbidden as a source of BLP information, see WP:BLPPRIMARY), but that it is self-published and thus in the case of BLP's runs afoul of WP:BLPSPS which says, absolutely, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." However, taking that position to remove information or remove citations to GRG may cause you to run into a hornet's nest of opposition as was amply demonstrated in the links I gave above, so I would walk cautiously and seek consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Stricken material subsequently withdrawn, see below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A clariication on GRG's correspondents; as can be seen in the above link, these individuals are independent volunteers (GRG is a collaboration of such volunteers), many of whom are affiliated with a wide variety of disparate academic institutions, or parallel (but strictly independent) projects such as the New England Centenarian Study, the Guinness Book of World Records, the Okinawa Centenarian Study, and the Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging. GRG (which stands for "Gerontology Research Group") is the output of their collaboration; data which is necessarily verified and used by the respective organizations of these volunteers. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As per the above section the statements "3rd oldest in US" and "4th oldest in world" need a cite other than GRG (such as an updated version of this (which is still appropriate for "oldest in Massachusetts"), for the reasons given above and at Talk:Misao Okawa. The choices for "among oldest 100 ever" are:

1. Link to the wiki article, which although largely based on GRG has been allowed to stand (with some argument against as noted by Transportman)
2. Find an appropriate non-GRG citation which states the same thing (or similar, a precise figure of say 97 would be outdated/inaccurate within days)
3. Remove the statement altogether, there being no appropriate citation and its inclusion would violate WP:OR

Failing 2, 1 is my preferred option as IMO being among the 100 oldest ever is more notable than being the 3rd oldest living in the US or 4th oldest living in the world. If using 2 seems inconsistent then I'm happy for the link to be removed (or moved to See Also) and a tag added and if no citation is forthcoming then for the statement to be removed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Per your first point above, "Link to the wiki article, which although largely based on GRG has been allowed to stand (with some argument against as noted by Transportman)", "3rd oldest in the US" and "4th oldest in the world" should be allowed to stand as they are also sourced by GRG. The mentioned source for "oldest in the Massachusetts" (this) is a self-published *secondary* source (that does not mention its own primary sources for this assertion, which I suspect is GRG); why do you assume that it is appropriate to cite one self-published secondary source for one claim, but not a primary source for two other claims? Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum; from [5] "She's amongst a select number of "supercentarians," people who reached at least the age of 110. The Gerontology Research Project has verified 71 supercentenarians, but estimates there are between 350 and 400 in the world." This citation is then a secondary source which relies on GRG as a primary source. It makes no sense to claim that the secondary source is valid for "oldest person in Massachusetts," but not the primary source from which it explicitly derived this information. In fact, I'm fairly certain that every single reference listed for this article, other than the Family Search links, is a secondary source relating information from GRG. I am confident that that's the case because there is no other such source from which to make these claims, and any similar sources (ie New England Centenarian Study) are in fact affiliated with and derive information from GRG. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to say for the record, that my sentiments on this are reflected in the last two statements on a lengthy and unproductive argument on GRG's reliability as a source here. It is personally difficult to believe that there is such intense disagreement over the status of findings by a group made up of some the world's most active experts in the field, experts who have produced the only such source in existence, and who are essentially universally cited by every single newspaper, magazine, periodical, or TV show that makes any claim about a supercentenarian's age. Considering the sources used in citations throughout Wikipedia, it seems very clear to me that the standards of WP:RS are not being evenly applied in this case. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes when I sleep on something I think of factors which make me come to the conclusion that I was dead wrong. I've come to the conclusion that I was wrong about my opinion that GRG is a self-published source on the information provided by its correspondents. Here's why: If the correspondents were reporting information which they observed with their own eyes then it would be self-published. If what the correspondents were reporting was, for example, "I went out and took a look at Mr. Jones and I can verify that he looks really, really old." or, for another example, "I saw Mr. Jones blowing out the 113 candles on his birthday cake." that would be self-published information. But that's not what they're doing here. There's no way for the correspondents to look at a person and verify that s/he's a particular age. They are instead verifying it through examination of evidence received from third parties (at least I presume that's what they mean by "verified"; I don't know what else it could mean). That makes GRG a secondary source, not a primary source (I was wrong about that, too) and means that as compiled by GRG they are not self-published. None of that necessarily means, however, that GRG is a reliable source, but only that GRG's website is neither primary or self-published. The individual reports of the correspondents would be considered self-published (and no amount of expertise on their part would allow them to be used as sources about living persons due to the part of WP:SPS that says expert self-published materials may be used as sources for some purposes but not for information about living persons) and the question would then become what GRG's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy may be in regard to compiling those individual reports and offering them to the public. (A reputation upon which I have considerable doubt, but no actual evidence except to note that it certainly appears that GRG is merely accepting and repeating those individual reports uncritically and in reliance on the expertise and good faith of the individual correspondents.) I apologize for the mistakes noted above, but I now clearly feel that that they were indeed mistakes. Abashedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

3O remarks

3O Response: GRC is an acceptable WP:RS (and is not a primary source). It serves to WP:V her age. Even if it did not say directly that Bernice is the "oldest", "second oldest", etc. it is acceptable to do a calculation from available data (from GRC or otherwise) to say she is the nth oldest. As for posting GRC in the See also section, you avoid that by wikilinking GRC when you use it as a citation. – S. Rich (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC) .

More opinions/cleanup needed

As can be seen, this talk page consists entirely of discussions between myself and DerbyCountyinNZ of potentially contentious edits. These disagreements have centered around differing interpretations of policies and guidelines. Importantly, our disagreements have come to dominate the article crafting and discussion process regarding this sensitive BLP. More opinions and other editors are needed to offer guidance and perspective, and to counterbalance the views of myself and DerbyCountyinNZ. In effort to get more input, am adding a {{cleanup}} tag, and listing this at WP:THIRD. Blacksun1942 (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was asked to comment here by User:DerbyCountyinNZ because I often comment on issues related to longevity on Wikipedia, and thus I am making writing not as an official "third opinion", but merely to offer my perspective. I actually don't believe that the GRG website violates WP:PRIMARY, and my reasons have been, I feel, well elucidated by other individuals above. My problem is that the source simply doesn't verify that Madigan is the third-oldest living person in the United States or the fourth-oldest in the world. As the source itself says "The total number of supercentenarians that we have cited above has been frequently been misconstrued [...] as representing every single person in the world aged 110 and over". In other words, the source is not claiming to have every single individual over the age of 110 listed so, for all we know, there could be 10 people between Talley and Madigan. Indeed, looking at Longevity claims, I see two individuals (Gertrude Weaver and Andrew Hatch) who might be older than Madigan from the United States alone. Normally this sort of speculation would be unacceptable, because of WP:OR but, in this case, the source itself is admitting to its unreliability in documenting every single supercentenarian. So, at the very least, all of these "rankings" need the qualifier of "verified", otherwise it's perfectly legitimate for someone to go in and note that she is the third-oldest living person in the United States if the cases of Weaver and Hatch (which can be cited to reliable sources) are discounted. But overall, spending this much time arguing about an article that contains unencyclopedic nonsense like what she eats for breakfast or who her favourite United States Presidents were, is going to do very little to improve the overall quality of this article or the reputation of Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's far from "full" disclosure. You may also wish to add that you act as Derby's protector and benefactor, blocking those who dare to challenge him, while allowing him to flagrantly violate WP:BLP. That would be "full disclosure". Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As in any area of science, verified does not mean certainty or truth on Wikipedia. Verified simply means that we have a reliable source, which you agree we have. We are not in the business here of making judgements about the reliability a source places on its claims. There are thousands of claims made on Wikipedia that have reliable sources that I think are mistaken, but my opinion doesn't matter. Once we have a list of verified individuals 110 are over, then it is merely a matter of counting WP:CALC. So, she is the third-oldest verified over 110. There may be a hundred others older, but that is of no matter unless we can verify it with reliable sources.I am One of Many (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You would think that "verified simply means that we have a reliable source"; it certainly does at all other en-Wiki articles. Unfortunately, the longevity fanboys seem to think that WP policy doesn't apply to their articles (i'e. a WP:RS stating a subject's DOB isn't enough; it needs to be "verified" by their buddies with three pieces of documentation). This, of course, has no basis whatsoever in any WP policy and it will eventually take outside intervention to undo the ubiquitous damage they have caused. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet more ignorant crap! A so-called "reliable source" could just as easily report that someone has celebrated their 150th birthday as their 110th. Even otherwise reputable news organisations have either made up stories; been taken in by hoaxes; or been to lazy to check what they've been told. Where's the "reliability" in that? What that the GRG requires is irrelevant, there are other reputable authorities, possibly even government departments, who have different criteria but unfortunately do not make their information publicly available. As such we are, unfortunately, stuck with GRG for the majority or the genuinely reliable information. Dismissing them as a source, or accepting that anything else which fulfills WP:RS is just as "reliable" as GRG would only lead to wiki being filled with even more bullshit. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I rest my case. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies

There is currently a discussion about what constitutes encyclopedia content on longevity related biographies at Talk:Gertrude Weaver#What is appropriately encyclopedic content for longevity related biographies please comment. I am One of Many (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bernice Madigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://genomics.xprize.org/100-over-100/community/bernice-madigan

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bernice Madigan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103173911/http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM to http://grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

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) 18:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)