Talk:Maurice Joly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)