Talk:Maurice Joly

message: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

message: What is the novel by Sue that was plagerized?
Apparently, Les Mystères du peuple.  See Plagiarism of Sue's work. --RonAmoriM 20:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sue novel - plagiarized - question 

message: "The police swiftly tracked down its author, and Joly was arrested and . The books were banned. On April 25, 1865, he was sentenced to a prison term of fifteen months at Sainte-Pélagie."
I personally suspect that the total jail term was 15 months, and that "imprisoned for fifteen months" shold be changed to just "imprisoned". If I am wrong, this should probably be made clearer in the passage. DewiMorgan 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 or 30 months? 

message: I have seen references, including in Umberto Eco's novel, The Prague Cemetery, that Joly committed suicide, sometimes with the detail that he did so in jail or in anticipation of being jailed.  No particular comment on the manner of his death here.  Would someone please provide reliable info? Sussmanbern (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  His death 

message: I've just removed these edits all made by 89.24.4.98 under the external links section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maurice_Joly&diff=112691190&oldid=101753213 .  I'll briefly explain why the removals:
Strangely it appears above that the work has been originally published in Geneva (and then in Brussels), so it is not clear why it should be "smuggled" back in from France.  The article does not say the work was smuggled back in from France, but into France, which is correct.
The missing link between the plagiarized work and the Protocols is described in a greater detail inder this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Sue  Violates WP:ASR in form, and unlikely to be needed.
The theory that the Protocols are derived from these works is not substantiated, although there has been a great effort to do so. See for example: RUSSIAN COURT RULES 'PROTOCOLS' AN ANTI-SEMITIC FORGERY, by Michael A. Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, November 28, 1993.  Since it is by far the majority scholarly view that the Protocols were plagiarized in this fashion and has been for about ninety years, the correct place to present the minority view that the "theory" has not been "substantiated" is in the article on the Protocols, not here.  The Los Angeles Times article mentioned, BTW, does not support at all this minority view.
Henry Makow argues the claim to forgery was a cover-up - a red herring. The reader is advised to see for himself.  Wikipedia does not do any advising, and if Henry Makow is a reliable source whose arguments merit examination, the place for that examination is in the article on the Protocols, not this article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits by 89.24.4.98  

message: Joly appears in the category "French Jews". According to John Waggoner's 2003 edition of Joly's Dialogues "Joly was not of Jewish descent as was later asserted by Nazi apologists". . I am removing him. A claim in the main text that he was Jewish was previously footnoted to a deranged rant from "Radio Islam", fortunately removed. Paul B (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Maurice Joly. 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/20160201001000/http://www.huelin.fr/2015/08/rue-maurice-joly.html to http://www.huelin.fr/2015/08/rue-maurice-joly.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Although France is a civil law jurisdiction, not common law, the essential meaning of Barratry used in the WP article is what's intended by the phrase here. It's more a rhetorical flourish than formal legal definition, so that word can be changed if preferred. If it's kept we should link, though, as it is an unusual enough word to need explanation. Whichever is thought best: I did point the link to that common law article, but understand if it needs to be changed. Thanks. 49.177.6.159 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barratry