Discussion Literature / TheProtocolsOfTheEldersOfZion

Don't these fit on the Your Mileage May Vary Page instead? Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of that page.

YMMV pages are only for YMMV items, not tropes. All what is listed here are tropes.

YMMV tropes are tropes that always are YMMV, YMMV items are not a different thing to tropes. As it says here.

These are what we call the 'YMMV items.' Things that some people find in this work. We call them 'your mileage might vary' because not everyone sees these things in the same way. This starts discussions in the trope lists, a thing we don't want. Please use the discussion page if you'd like to discuss any of these items.

The kind of stuff that is written above are the YMMV items even if they are not YMMV tropes. Tropes that apply if only if read from a certain POV.

That thing up there says "YMMV items". It's not about tropes. We've two indexes saying what goes on YMMV tabs.

<<<Tvtropes is not supposed to be an advocacy site nor is it for bashing things>>>

The original setup of the document read as pure advocacy not only for the generally accepted view that the protocols are a forgery but also for his own particular views as to exactly why they were forged and the exact reasoning as to why.

The reason that I say that little mention is made in the document of the Tsar and Russia is because the reader is likely to arrive at a false conclusion that the document is concerned primarily with Russia, the Tzar and Russian politics.

The reason for including the As Genuine section is really the same as for the As Forgery section. Certain tropes are not in the document itself but are related specifically to the document being a forgery. Certain tropes are also relevant in the opposite sense; for instance a person or group believing in the Protocols falls under Hitler Ate Sugar, they aren't automaticly as evil as Hitler because they agree with eachother on one thing. This is hugely relevant because significant contempery non-Nazi groups and individuals in the Middle East as the page states believe in the Protocols validity.

It is also important in another sense, to promote rationality in regards to the subject by exploring what would apply and what would not apply were the protocols genuine and equally as a false belief system (think of it like any religion you don't believe in). This helps to diffuse paranoia, demonisation and fanaticism.

Look, I normally support political neutrality, but you're taking the Golden Mean Fallacy up to insane heights. First of all, the fact that the focus is on France only supports the theory that it was plagiarized from Maurice Joly's satire of French politics. Second of all, there is no "controversy" over the validity of "The Protocols" any more than there is a "controversy" over whether the Holocaust really happened. Even The Other Wiki says that "The Protocols" is a hoax and we're supposed to be a "buttload more informal" than them!

I agree there is great value in presenting both sides of an issue, but do we really need to bother with a viewpoint which is blatantly false and only supported by people who are ideologically biased? I don't think I'm advocating censorship here. I believe neo-Nazis are fully within their rights to publish whatever sort of anti-Semitic lies they want to. But that doesn't mean we need to lend them credence. I also find the argument that "The Protocols" is a victim of the Hitler Ate Sugar fallacy to be absurd. Demonizing an entire race of people is not like painting or liking dogs (both innocuous things Hitler did). Along with the totalitarian form of government, it's at the very heart of what made Nazism so evil.

However, I'm not going to change or revert this article in any way. I only ask that you think very hard about the changes you've made and whether you really think they're appropriate.

(I do appreciate your work in expanding the article, though.)

The Golden Mean Fallacy is when you take a compromise view between two positions simply because it is the middle view rather than actually taking into account the arguments of either side. It is not the adoption of a compromise position, it is giving weight to a position BECAUSE it is a compromise (rather than adopting a compromise based upon actual reasoning and evidence).

The Golden Mean Fallacy for the Protocols would be to say that in fact 50% of the Protocols must be forged and 50% must be genuine simply because that's the middle ground.

Everyone is ideologically biased and if a larger number of people agree with a statement then that can be as much reflection of their ideological bias as the smaller number disagreeing with the statement. What you are clutching at is the slippery and widely abusable concept of False Weight; that marginal positions should not be given equal coverage as dominant positions because this can be a form of stealth advocacy for marginal positions. This concept is open to abuse by dominant view ideologues who outright state their entire ideological position as an undisputable fact; the article should give room for minority dissenting views even if they are not equally covered.

Hitler Ate Sugar does not merely apply to trivial matters Random888, it refers to policies and opinions also, including hateful, false and evil ones. A person holding the opinion that the Protocols are genuine would be agreeing with Hitler which leaves them vulnrable to the use of this fallacious argument by their opponents, which is why I included it.

The crucial element here is that the position must be hateful, false and evil on its own terms and not simply because it was held by an evil person; this means that a person should legitimately be able simply say "Hitler was right" in response to being informed that Hitler believed in their position without that making them bad or wrong.

@SlayerofCliffracers: So your point is: Just because the Nazis believed in a global Jewish cabal that wants to Take Over the World doesn't mean there isn't a global Jewish cabal that wants to Take Over the World. Is that correct?