Talk:Maurice Joly

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

Sue novel - plagiarized - question
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)

I also added the Sue/plagiarized title above. --Ludvikus 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there some sources for "Subsequent research points"? 80.171.1.39 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more specific information about the alleged parallels between Sue and Joly? I mean, something similar to the way that people have lined up lists of passages from the DIALOGUES and the PROTOCOLS and shown that clear parallels exist. Is there some similar work done showing a list of parallels from something which Sue wrote and Joly's play? i read through volume 3 of THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE or THE HISTORY OF A PROLETARIAN FAMILY DOWN THROUGH THE AGES and nothing stood out immediately as parallel with the text in Joly's DIALOGUES. Does anyone have more specific information on what Joly is alleged to have copied from Sue and from which text by Sue? Simply citing THE MYSTERIES OF A PEOPLE isn't specific enough because that in itself is a huge 3-volume work, where each individual volume is itself pretty large. It's also been published in the format of about 21 separate smaller books. There is even a significantly smaller version published in 3 volumes under the title THE RIVAL RACES or THE SONS OF JOEL. That smaller version certainly does not have any passages which spring out as naturally parallel with Joly. I've read it completely. I've only read volume 3 of the full edition, because I assumed that the volume which had material relating to the French Revolution would be most likely to have been the one which Joly allegedly cribbed from. But I didn't notice any natural parallels in the text that could be made with the DIALOGUES. Sue has written other books. THE WANDERING JEW contained Jesuit conspiracies in a way which did remind me in a general sense of the PROTOCOLS, but with that book also I didn't find anything which stood out as parallel passages duplicated in the DIALOGUES. Does anyone really have specific information on which work of Sue's Joly is alleged to have cribbed from and what are the listings of passages which in each author's work that can be invoked to argue such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.13 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

15 or 30 months?
"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)

His death
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)

edits by 89.24.4.98
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)

Jewish
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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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)

Barratry
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)