Talk:Jacques Vergès

Vergès

Vergès wasn't muslim, was he, really ? where does that come from ? There was a mass when he died, in a catholic church 90.1.25.230 (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Vergès' youth

The article says:

"After the war, while his twin brother Paul was imprisoned for murdering a political rival to their father"

This most surely alludes to the death of Alexis de Villeneuve, an event nowadays mostly forgotten outside of Reunion Island. Villeneuve was killed by a bullet during a political meeting.

Google for his name, you'll find plenty of articles discussing who was involved and what truly happened. It seems to me that the opinions in the articles on local Web sites regarding this death favor one theory or the other depending on the writer's political choices. A little note: Paul Vergès is best known for being the current president of Reunion Island's Regional Council.

Now something that's most probably inaccurate:

"He joined the Reunionese Communist Party.[citation needed] In 1942, with his father's encouragement"

As far as I understand, the Reunionese Communist Party (PCR) was founded in 1959 by Raymond Vergès (Jacques' father), making local Communists autonomous from the French Communist Party (PCF). So Jacques could not be a member of this nonexistent organization in 1942. Maybe what is meant is that he was a member of some Reunionese section of the PCF... and then this again sounds dubious since at the time Reunion was run by Vichy France, which outlawed the PCF. So maybe he was a member of a clandestine organization, but then this would have to be researched. David.Monniaux (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another dubious and uncited claim

"Throughout his career as an attorney, Vergès has primarily taken political cases,"

Jacques Vergès is best known for taking up political cases. However, you do not make a living out of these cases, and as far as I know Vergès made a living as a lawyer, including business cases. I would therefore suspect the claim is inaccurate. David.Monniaux (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jacques Vergès is the son of Raymond Vergès, a French diplomat"

While Raymond Vergès was consul of France to Siam, he is best known as a politician from Reunion Island, where he was a physician during WWII. David.Monniaux (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

When asked if he would defend (who?); read quotes, really read them

In the last 24 hours, an edit war started over whether a question put to Vergès was "would you defend Hitler?" or "would you defend Ariel Sharon?". A certain editor who doesn't want to log in under a user account -- I have a low opinion of that -- thinks it was "Hitler", and this editor cites a review of a movie documentary about Vergès in an American newspaper. Another editor claims "Sharon", citing an interview with Vergès in a French newspaper. First off, neither editor is 100% correct, including the editor who cited the French L'Express! The French text says "BUSH OR Sharon". A quick lesson for the anonymous editor. Which is more reliable: an actual interview with the subject, in the subject's native language, by a leading national newspaper of his country, or a movie review in a foreign country? It's a no brainer! In addition, a well informed editor would be aware that the American news media are blindly pro-Israel, so it's not surprising that the mistake would consist of replacing an Israeli prime minister's name with Hitler's. That settled, there's the issue I raised in the edit summary of quoting out of context. The passage to consult is at the conclusion of the published interview. In his answer, Vergès explains the sacred ("sacred" is my word) duty of a defense lawyer to defend even the vilest defendants. He continues that the lawyer must conduct the defense according to his own moral beliefs. Vergès gives an example. It is after all this that he finally answers the question. Here's the quote:

QUESTION: Are there people you personally can't defend? Would you defend George Bush and Ariel Sharon, for example? (Y a-t-il pour vous des gens indéfendables? Défendriez-vous, par exemple, George Bush ou Ariel Sharon?) ANSWER: An attorney is there to defend, like a doctor is there to treat. You wouldn't understand a doctor who refused to treat an AIDS sufferer on the grounds that it's a sexually transmitted disease and the doctor disapproves, for example, of sodomy. Likewise, you would not understand him refusing to treat a sick person on account of his activities, a gangster for example. It's the same for an attorney. The graver the accusation, the greater the accused's right to a legal defense and the greater the attorney's duty to provide a defense. At the same time, the attorney is not a mercenary, he has his own life and his own convictions, and the defense he proposes to the accused must take that into account. If Barbie, for example, had asked me to assert in his defense the thesis of the superiority of the Aryan race, I would have refused. What I'm getting at is that the attorney must accept the task of defending the worst criminals, on a single but important condition: the accused must agree with the defense strategy. For Bush and Sharon, I'm game if they plead guilty.

I think that anybody who is aware of the context would see the prudence of not even mentioning the quote in the absence of the context. Hurmata (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is to follow up my preceding comment. (1) It can happen to anyone that they are logged in to Wikipedia under their user account, and they get logged out by their local computer network or Wikipedia. So you might save an edit without verifying you're still logged in. Once, that's OK. Sometimes people will log right back in just to claim authorship of the edit. But when you edit twice or more anonymously within the same short time span, that's almost certainly deliberate. I disapprove of substantive edits anonymously, especially controversial edits. That's dodging accountability. (2) Some people are naïve, they don't realize that mainstream media too get facts wrong all the time. We repeat things if they appear in a reliable source, but reliable isn't infallible. Hurmata (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote adds value to the article. I don't really understand your repeated removal that starts to look like edit warring. I can see the point that the quote mentioning only Bush (but not Sharon) might be selective (but not really inaccurate to make Verges' point), but my last edit corrected that. I really can't see an objection to it; as value, it both adds something of both style and philosophical substance, so really help the lead. LotLE×talk 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I partly agree with you, in that I think the quote possibly adds value to the article's lead, there's a problem with it: its interpretation -- i.e., what does it reveal about Vergès? -- is in fact ambiguous. I admit I have not addressed this before now, but on the other hand I thought the ambiguity was obvious, but it has turned out not to be. I further find the ambiguity can't be fully dispelled, and I find it could be partially dispelled but that to do so might require bogging down the lead with an extended reference to an interview in L'Express.

I will now spell this out (for those who are interested, that is, for those who don't reflexively proclaim that I don't discuss the content of the article). Over the years, on multiple occasions, it seems, the following exchange has occurred: words to the effect of (Interviewer) "would you defend (hugely despised X)?"; (Jacques Vergès) Yes, but only if he/they plead guilty". Now, I take this answer to be sarcastic because you don't defend somebody who pleads guilty, you only represent them. The point of the question is, "is there somebody even you wouldn't defend?" and this answer is a rhetorical trick that seems to say "no, there isn't" but mean "yes, there is". Now, before I ever joined the editing of this article, someone else gave us a link to an interview in L'Express in which Vergès proceeded to answer the question by soberly intoning that bedrock principle of criminal due process, namely, that every accused deserves a defense, or at least representation. Vergès even states (I repeat a quote from above):

The graver the accusation, the greater the accused's right to a legal defense and the greater the attorney's duty to provide a defense,

and he illustrates with the actual example of his defense of a Nazi officer charged with hundreds of murders. But he concludes his long answer with the ambiguous "but only if this X and Y plead guilty". So even if you allude to the content of the long answer (as Lulu did in one recent edit), Vergès's intention remains murky. Now, if it was clear that the answer was meant satirically, then you could use it in the lead; it would show that the subject has a satiric, mischievous side to his personality. OR, if you were willing to enhance the article by enlarging that part of it, possibly requiring you cite more references, you could present Verges as somebody who dodges this major question by crafting an ambiguous answer.

Before I finish, readers need to understand a day or two ago, there was confusion, incompatibility, between the version of the allusion and citations. Editor Lulu tried alluding to the philosophical explanation, but cited an interview where it didn't occur (from a movie), while not citing the interview where it did occur. Apparently, the provocative question was asked in both interviews, it was just asked slightly differently, and it was answered differently. Hurmata (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of inaccurately sourced quote

Please refer to the first comment under the heading that this heading comes under. Here's the log for the edit that I changed:

18:34, 7 August 2008 Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Talk | contribs) (12,239 bytes) (the quote is helpful in showing "sacred" duty of defense... let's just fix it to be correct instead of remove it).

I see merit in the edit summary, and the passage itself isn't terrible. But in sourcing the quotation, Lulu handled the edit very carelessly -- to the point of irresponsibility. Hey you, you cited the source that, as I have explained above in that initial comment, misquoted him! -- it doesn't contain the passage you have inserted! Now, but where did you get that passage? -- from me, from the translation I provided above! AND you cited the damned movie again (see new topic below, "Other names known by"). When all along, the source is neither of those, it is a French newspaper -- and the article's URL was provided in an article history edit summary, no less! What a lulu !! (For the non-American contingent of en.wikipedia: "what a lulu" is a piece of American slang popular in the era between 1 to 2 generations ago.) (btw, for those who couldn't think of what's wrong with citing a movie: citing a movie isn't wrong on principle, but apparently, you people want to have people sit thru a video indefinitely, listening for the mention cited in a Wikipedia article? Jesus Christ, if you cite a book, you usually should provide a page number, or at least a chapter. It follows that if you cite a movie, provide either the minute or a page number in the transcript. You don't have that info often, do you?) Hurmata (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I've adjusted it, I don't use a direct quote since we need to paraphrase to make the point. Rather than being coy about the citation you are alluding to, could you just give it to us here? LotLE×talk 17:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'd recomment that Hurmata read WP guideline WP:NONENG. S/he asks: "Which is more reliable: an actual interview with the subject, in the subject's native language, by a leading national newspaper of his country, or a movie review in a foreign country?" The answer is a "no brainer", but it's not the answer Hurmata thinks. That said, I think my paraphrase of the French interview is still better in giving context than is the direct quote from the English movie/article that we give as citation. If Hurmata can give us the citation, perhaps we can use that form. If we can get a citation, I think my paraphrase should work: "When asked if he would have defended Hitler, Vergès once replied that even George W. Bush or Ariel Sharon would deserve proper counsel, but he could only defend them if they agreed to plead guilty." LotLE×talk 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But he never said anything about Sharon the interview in the movie he only talks about bush -- Esemono (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm basically with you Esemono. But we do not automatically need to use the movie quote in the lead. The French interview apparently does have some greater nuance to it (if we can wrestle the citation for it out of Hurmata), and would probably give a better perspective on what Verges is getting at. That said, I don't understand Hurmata's apparent notion that Verges must have said exactly the same thing on every occasion (and therefore the LA Times must be misquoting)... it seems quite likely that the bio subject uses different formulations of the "whom would you defend?" concept during different interviews. LotLE×talk 18:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Detailed response to User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (also goes by LotLE).

• (1) Quoting from him from above this subheading, today: I don't really understand your repeated removal that starts to look like edit warring. I could say I don't really understand your repeated insertion that starts to look edit warring. Not only that, the edit summaries give the lie to your accusation. I made the deletion at 16:44, 13 August 2008 Hurmata (Talk | contribs) (Delete inaccurately sourced quote. See talk page.). You made this accusation at 17:06, 13 August 2008, just 21 minutes later -- too impatient. I was working on my promised explanation and I posted it at 17:29, 13 August 2008, which is much later than I wished, but still less than an hour after editing the article. From these considerations, I conclude your "edit warring" accusation is hypocritical.
• (2) Your advice that I consult a particular policy or guideline is not to be taken seriously until you identify how you think I violated it. Today you have done this twice, the second time was in an article page edit summary. You are wielding a tactic of insinuation, which tempts interlocutors to surmise (possibly rashly) what your objection is, when you ought to be plainly stating your objection. This foments "edit warring", in my judgement. Yet in this topic you have accused me of being "coy".
• (3) You have nagged me to provide a source I alluded to. I addressed that point here even before you raised it. You talk of "wrenching out of Hurmata" a source for a quotation that you want to put in and Hurmata wants taken out. In doing so, you are pretending not to notice the information I did give. This is all thuggish behavior.
• (4) You replied to Esemono, "I don't understand Hurmata's apparent notion that Verges must have said exactly the same thing on every occasion (and therefore the LA Times must be misquoting)... it seems quite likely that the bio subject uses different formulations of the "whom would you defend?" concept during different interviews." This argument is fallacious factually and logically. You pretend that the Times's Ken Turan interviewed Jacques Vergès without evidence. It's a movie review; in the typical case, this means he attended a press screening, where they give out a "press packet", so he almost certainly found quotes in the press packet plus he watched the movie. He's a journalist -- if he had interviewed Verges himself, he should have said so, and probably would have. Next, you are making the speculation that Verges has answered this question in interviews multiple times *without* a "reliable source". It's a very plausible speculation, but you cite no "RS" for a speculation you're using to refute me! (and to put words in mouth).
• (5) In one edit summary, you advocated using anything any "RS" says. I have not seen you address the reality that RS's disagree among themselves. Hurmata (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• In the Ken Turan movie review the quote is, " Is there nothing Jacques Verges wouldn’t do? Would he defend Hitler? 'I’d even defend Bush,' the attorney replies, perfectly in character, wreathed in enigmatic cigar smoke. 'But only if he pleaded guilty.' again nothing about Sharon. -- Esemono (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Esemono, I congratulate you on going to so much trouble as to play the video and record the timing of the passage. But just now I couldn't find anything in the WP citation policy pertaining to citing from audiovisual works. I would be the first to advocate updating the policy. Also, videos would often be more feasible to verify than a book on some hugely obscure topic, say, on Bulgarian dance, even if such a book was written in English. This video on Jacques Verges is more widely and more readily available than many books or magazine articles. But that's a relative thing: this video is probably held by only a few public libraries and public university libraries, so many Wikipedia users would have to buy it. It would be preferable to cite Web based content (including audiovisual). Hurmata (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not able or willing to respond, Hurmata, to something written in the tone you have taken. Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and reconsider modifying your comments to be about the article rather than a set of attacks against me personally (per WP:RPA). LotLE×talk 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• (1)Anyone can readily see the many points I have raised in the last two days that address the article.
• (2)Since you accused me of "original research" without substantiating the claim, we should have doubts when you insinuate that another editor has adopted an inappropriate tone.
• (3)As just now, you persistently employ the tactic of invoking guidelines and policies without relating them to what I have said. Therefore, we should have doubts as to your stated rationale for declining to respond to points I raise. Hurmata (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Other names known by"

Some editor gratuitously inserted into the infobox the claim that Verges is "also known as 'the Luminous Bastard' ". Obviously, only bitter enemies call him that. This is like reporting of each U.S. president that they "other names known by are 'bastard' and 'asshole'. While it is very possible that French reporters might jazz up their articles on Verges with "known as 'The Devil's advocate", it is hardly possible that they would use the other name. Why didn't you add that he is also known as 'monster'?! Besides, the article contains no discussion to confirm that he is so "otherwise known". A footnote to a movie is not a sufficient sourcing. Try citing a transcript of the movie. Hurmata (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, who signs himself as LotLE×talk, has restored the passage discussed in this topic without bothering to justify himself. He didn't even report it, as he included that edit along with another edit, in the last few minutes. Since he's a Ph.D. philosopher, he can discuss the ethics of this move. Hurmata (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He calls himself, 'the Luminous Bastard' that's why it's included in the other names. -- Esemono (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The correct translation is shiny bastard. The French cognate of luminous is ordinary language in French, but in English luminous is academic or poetic. "Shiny bastard" seems to be long out of fashion in American slang. Lately a barbell manufacturer has reclaimed it for a product name. In English or French, it's a strong insult (or it was in English 70 years ago), but I really don't know what its precise force is. Hurmata (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The article uses the translation, luminous, so I go with what the source tells us -- Esemono (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Consider the analogous case of African-American entertainer Dick Gregory, who 40 years ago titled his own autobiography Nigger: An Autobiography. The evidence presented to us so far is that Verges used brilliant bastard as the title of an autobiography. The most natural interpretations of such an act is that he's spiting his enemies by rubbing their nose in his success. Hurmata (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I question the accuracy and also the appropriateness of the information that has been inserted under in the Infobox under a category, "Other names". I don't think references have been provided that "devil's advocate" is anything more than journalistic hype and that "shiny bastard" is actually a name that the public at large would call him by. By contrast, American baseball star Alex Rodriguez may well be called "A-Rod" (the nickname sportswriters like to use) by baseball fans at large. In a BLP, I think media sobriquets or insulting sobriquets should be placed in the body of the article, when their inclusion can be justified at all. Take this thought example: in America there have been many serial murderers or serial rapist-murderers, and any number of contemptuous descriptions have been used about each of them. But there probably isn't any among them who, if you utter, "the monster", even when specifically talking about serial killers, the audience immediately thinks of that one perpetrator.

Let us not ignore the common knowledge that it is a custom among journalists, in some countries at least, to relentlessly refer to controversial persons or alleged criminals by sensational sobriquets, often of a deprecatory nature. In America, this is the case with men associated with the Mafia. As for bank robbers at large, the FBI, which has the authority to pursue bank robbers, has a publicly admitted policy of inventing satirical names for suspects in the interest of boosting public interest in cases where an arrest has yet to be made. The sobriquets and nicknames that journalists attach to Mafia figures, if they really are used, are only used by close associates. In the case of these two "other names" for Jacques Vergès, so far we know that he used "shiny bastard" for the title of an autobiography published in 1990. Obviously, a main reason to choose that title its sensationalism. However, in the WP article, the context of its being hurled at Verges has not been cited; we have not been told how widely other people used it about him in print. The term, while I don't know its exact meaning, obviously means "type of loathsome person". Thus, although the French media "know Vergès" as "the Devil's advocate", it is very unlikely that opponents speak to the press in terms like "I am very dismayed at what Mon. Vergès, the "shiny bastard", has said today regarding the case of his client X", or that interviewers write, "I sat down to an interview with Jacques Verges, the "shiny bastard". So far, we don't have a citation that Vergès goes around insisting on being called this. Hurmata (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I really wish, Hurmata, that you would tone down the persistent personal attacks and argumentative tone. For example, this is really a needlessly confrontational edit summary: (Delete provocative, insouciant text from Infobox, on grounds of departing from encyclopedic tone. Text might be insertable in body of article. See talk page.).

That said, I agree with this edit. I don't really think the nicknames are "insouciant", but they do misuse the infobox for material that should be described in the body. An infobox should only contain minimal and purely factual information. "Also known" is really only for clarification of actual name changes, perhaps of prominent pen-names, not of informal nicknames like these. I looked at your example about "A-Rod", but unfortunately the infobox on baseball players doesn't have an analogous field to use for comparison. In any case, I think some mention of the names within the body (but probably not in the lead), would be worthwhile as long as it was associated with a context and sources. LotLE×talk 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And for my part I really wish you'd stop hurling phony charges at me and stop hurling charges without any specifications. For example, I didn't make any personal attacks today, so I haven't "persisted" in doing so. I keep protesting at your charges and you just respond with new ones and don't justify the old ones.

And if you don't think some article text is "insouciant", nevertheless somebody else does. It's a reasonable opinion; so it's fine for you to disagree, but it's not the type of opinion that anyone would have any business scolding. Hurmata (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in seeing a case made against voicing an argumentative tone in edit summaries. Hurmata (talk) 05:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I'm sure you'll make an excellent WP editor, but it's important to learn the rules here. LotLE×talk 17:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Giovanni di Stefano and Jacques Verges both have been labeled "The Devil's advocate". Under the circumstances, I believe the labeling requires us to make a notation of this fact in both articles such as: "The Devil's advocate[nb 1]". I will be happy to perform this task if no one objects; yet it appears as though you editors here are capable of performing this task on your own. It requires creating a subsection within "References" for explanatory "Notes", and then adding the proper coding for a <ref group=nb name=ex02>...</ref>, with a relevant remark contained therein. For details see: HERE. For an example of a decent result see: HERE. (Note the use of <small></small> in the edit; I believe it is an effective use.) I believe both articles will benefit greatly from the addition of explanatory "Notes". Hag2 (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC) notice: I will perform this task within 24 hours if no one objects. Hag2 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The added footnote text mentioning the multiple use of the nickname seems helpful. I do not understand why it is necessary (nor desirable) to use a different note style for that note than from all the others. It certainly seems like using a regular footnote for the same point would be more logical, read better, and be more consistent with WP style. What's up with that? LotLE×talk 16:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Lulu, I think it is a matter of WP desired style (suggested by the details HERE). In the example of the Danny Casolaro article (HERE) you can see that the multiple use of Notes helps to keep "explanatory details" separated (and organized) from "reference material". In my opinion, the use of the two distinctly different categories helps researchers who actually bother to follow the various sources. Bottom line: In a lengthy, detailed article such as Jacques Verges or Giovanni Di Stefano good organization seems extremely relevant; otherwise a reader may become encumbered (and "numbed") by too much stuff. For example, in the Giovanni Di Stefano article the very long quoted material in "note no. 4" was swallowed by the 50-plus "footnote references" (and virtually lost). Hag2 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I read WP:REFGROUP before commenting. I understand the technical mechanism to separate the references. I just don't get the motive. You express a concern that the point about both Verges and Di Stefano having the same appellation not "get lost" in the other notes. As far as I can see, that only makes sense if we assume that that note is more important in some way than the notes around it; it doesn't strike me as a fact of such heightened importance. Sure it's interesting and moderately notable (and well enough cited), but so are all the other notes.

Anyway, my opinion is that it's not worth having separate reference groups in this article, at least not only for the one "explanatory note" that exists now. However, I don't feel strongly enough to undue your creation of the groups (absent someone else weighing in strongly with the same opinion I have). LotLE×talk 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation for autobiography

Does anyone have the citation for Vergès' autobiography? The web seems to be letting me down on this. It would be good to include in the reference list, and also next to the discussion of the translation of "Luminous/Brilliant Bastard". Is the book published only in French, or has it been translated as well? LotLE×talk 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What is disputed?

The tag was re-added, but I cannot see anything currently in dispute discussed on this talk page. What's up with that? LotLE×talk 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm disputing points of Vergès' life, including his 1942 membership in a party founded in 1959. See #Vergès' youth and following section.

From reading the discussions, I feel we definitely need some French-speaking people with an interest in Jacques Vergès to read his books and other French sources. Most of the problems discussed above seem to stem from the use of press sources, often in foreign languages. These are often not reliable (multiple summarizations, translations etc. may introduce errors). David.Monniaux (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim you mention. If there is something else you think is inaccurate, let us know here (or just fix it yourself). I don't like to keep generic "disputed" tags on pages where it's difficult to determine what they are supposed to be doing. Much better is a narrow "" tag for the specific claim in question. LotLE×talk 05:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Difficult to determine what they are supposed to be doing". If you personally applied the entire comment, including this clause, to disputes with fellow editors, this would entail setting aside the tactic of raising an unspecific objection and summoning the opponent to read policy page X. However, this has already been brought to your attention two or three times, to no effect. Hurmata (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I can be more specific. There are certainly some articles where the overall tone looks like original research with few citations. I've only contributed slightly to this article, and have no stake in any specific fact stated; however, in general it certainly appears to be pretty well cited and not read like WP:OR. A general article tag seems to border on WP:POINT in cases like this, especially where there does not seem to be any objection to addressing any specific problem as soon as it is presented. LotLE×talk 05:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving CPF

This apparently informative sentence was removed today:

He also left the French Communist Party following their political move towards the Fourth Republic.

If we think the fact is untrue, we definitely should not keep it. But if merely in need of better citation, I think it should stay, and we should find a reference. Or am I missing some other meaning in the edit (there was no meaningful edit comment to it). LotLE×talk 19:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Vergès. 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/20080813084423/http://www.fpri.org//enotes/20040414.americawar.radu.circusverges.html to http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20040414.americawar.radu.circusverges.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)