Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-28 The History Channel


 * The following discussion is an archive of the informal mediation of disputes regarding The History Channel. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or a user talkpage).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

Mediator statement
There is enough interest from the listed parties to get the case officially underway. I have moved the discussion from the case page to the talk page, and it is found below.

Please remember that this is an informal mediation. I will not be issuing any kind of judgement or decisions, my job here is simply to facilitate the discussion. This will require the good-faith efforts of everyone involved to reach a mutually satisfactory conclusion, and not merely try to "win the case". Please be willing to accept that the best solution might not be the one you had in mind, and remain open-minded to the suggestions of other editors.

Please remain civil in all discussions. This is a debate and not an argument. Everyone's opinion counts. Be patient and let people express their ideas and thoughts and don't be too quick to discount them.

Finally, be familiar with or at least be prepared to read up on the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning articles. Try to make your arguments founded upon existing policy. On the other hand, if you feel that policy is in fact hindering the improvement of Wikipedia we can always ignore all rules but if your argument depends upon doing that, be prepared to have a good reason why! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Previous Discussion
Hopefully this is the right place to discuss. I am a RC patroller, and presumed that the Hitler stuff was simply NPOV vandalism and thus reverted it. I was reverting in good faith, and definitely think that all opinions should be expressed to maintain NPOV. What are the other editors' thoughts? I would definitely like to see this issue resolved, especially since the History Channel is a pretty high-profile thing. Cheers,  Neranei  T / C  02:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The previous version of the article already mentioned the Hitler-related criticism and other perceived biases of the network. In my opinion the previous version was balanced and accurate, by no means ignoring criticism of the network but not making the article into a hatchet job. The new version is seriously unbalanced and strongly POV, again in my opinion, with criticism of the network receiving heavily undue weight. The Christianity-related criticism seems particularly overdone and unnecessarily extreme. The list of programs included in the article shows little evidence of any overwhelming Christian bias. Almost all the programs appear to have little or nothing to do with any religion, including Christianity. I would prefer to revert to the version of the article before the additions, but as a previous editor of the article, I'm not in the best position to judge. I would like to hear what an uninvolved mediator would have to say.


 * An example of criticism of the network included before the latest, heavily POV additions:


 * "The History Channel received the derisory nickname, the "Hitler Channel", for its extensive coverage of World War II, though much military-themed programming has now been shifted to its sister network, the Military History Channel. As might be expected of a U.S.-based network, the History Channel devotes most of its coverage to US and Western history. Programs have been criticized for bias especially in treatment of non-Western societies and customs. The network also emphasizes the history of relatively recent times, as opposed to ancient or medieval eras."


 * To me this seems like fair criticism of The History Channel, which is not given undue weight or allowed to dominate the article. The current version leads with heavy, repetitive, almost shouting-level criticism of the network - much of it overlapping with the criticism previously included - before even discussing basic material like the channel's ownership and history. I wouldn't mind adding some less inflammatory criticism of the channel for possibly "sensationalizing" historical events and other perceived faults. But the lengthy and unbalanced additions make the article into an unencyclopedic attack rather than an even-handed treatment. Casey Abell 17:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Abell hit it on the head. This article reads like an anti-History Channel website. When I tagged it I didn't realize there was a MedCab case on it, then I went to the talk page to decry the content and noticed it. Utterly appalling and I personally don't like The History Channel for some of the criticisms mentioned above. Yeah, the channel has problems but we can easily say this with out descending into a sophomoric rant filled with external jumps to more rants against The History Channel. Currently this article is an embarassment to Wikipedia and I am try to figure out why it hasn't been reverted, it should be, immediately. IvoShandor 21:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As a note, I have never edited this page before, I just watch it, which I do sometimes. IvoShandor 21:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shhhhh! We must all not speak ill of great and almighty TV networks who are controlled by Paulist Productions and other special-interest extremo-Christian groups. We will instead wipe it all underneath the rug with one or two bland feelgood sentences that aren't even based on sources or the actual reality as the people themselves see it. EVERYBODY calls it the Hitler Channel for a painfully obvious reason that Wikipedians probably are unable to understand. Bees, busy bees, don't poke the hive, don't poke the hive.--24.77.214.137 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, this "cabal" thing sounds like the inquisition and it's farcical because we all know that extremist Christians and their buddies will just weigh in and smother the article with PC nonsense in the guise of "NPOV"... but without a sourced criticism section, it's clearly POV. --24.77.214.137 00:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I might make a suggestion, you're really not helping your case with the extreme tone of your comments. We are here to write an encyclopedia from a neutral point of view. Your dismissal of "the guise of NPOV" and the shouting denunciations of "extremo-Christian groups" do not help you with other Wikipedia editors, even those who might agree with your political point of view. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and a tone which might be appropriate for Usenet newsgroups or partisan blogs is not useful here. As I said on the article's talk page, your criticisms of the History Channel were already included, for the most part, in the article. If you would prefer that these criticisms be collected in a separate section, that's a reasonable suggestion, as long as the section does not dominate the article, is written in a reasonable, neutral tone, and is balanced in its perspectives on the network. If you would prefer a heated, unbalanced denunciation of "extremo-Christian" groups or your other favorite hate objects, a Wikipedia article is not the appropriate venue. Casey Abell 03:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with Casey's first comment, that the earlier version of the article was definitely fair and balanced, and since Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia, facts should come first and opinions second. I don't think that "extremo-Christians" have taken over the article "in the name of NPOV", just as moderate Muslims haven't taken over the Islam article in the name of NPOV. To quote myself, "Facts should come first and opinions second". I am not a Christian, and thus am not attempting to defend the article because of religion, but because of Wikipedia policy. We should have a criticism section, it just shouldn't dominate the whole article, just be a part of it, like many other criticism sections out there. It seems to have worked in the past, and should work here. Besides, Casey is right, many concerns were expressed in the criticism section. Thanks,  Neranei  T / C  05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My, am I off-track right now, going to random pages. Oh well.  I feel that mister 24.77.214.137 has a claim rooted in fact...somewhere.  A criticism section would be nice, if even to just put the criticism in a separate paragraph from Save Our History.  I have noticed a large amount of Christian programming on the History channel in the last year, though much of it has been on History International, not the main channel.  Also, these programs are not nearly as terrible as IP-man seems to suggest.  Many of the programs, I have found, start from an extremist assumption and ease the audience towards a more moderate, objective position.  They make programs about, say, crossing the Red Sea, with the implication that they will prove that it really happened, and by the end they've managed to present most sides of historians, especially including the idea that Moses probably didn't actually cross the Red Sea, that this story was manufactured from too little scripture and most likely incorrect.  I found that it proves Christians leaders to be fallible, and it proves that the Bible can be interpreted in a myriad of conflicting ways.  I haven't seen any programs like this aimed at any other religions, but it seems to me that the goal of the programming is to take "extremo-Christians" and present them with some thought-provoking material to counteract their slovenly ignorance. 66.82.9.104 17:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point. Television channels often show bias, such as Fox News; that is definitely nothing new. So, as I've commented multiple times, a criticism section would definitely work; it's just that the whole article shouldn't be biased against the History Channel. Cheers,  Neranei  T / C  23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Observation
Ok, first I'd like to make sure everyone (including myself!) is on the same page as far as this discussion goes.

It appears to me that everyone who has commented so far does not seem to be opposed to having a section for critical information. This certainly isn't in contravention to any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and in fact many articles have a "Criticism" section.

However there is also some concern about whether the amount and level of criticism that exists (or existed) in the article. I believe the relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, with an emphasis on the section regarding undue weight. It is also important that we ensure criticism is not original research on our parts and is properly verified and reliably sourced.

Since everyone seems to agree that some criticism is appropriate, I would suggest that the simplest way to work toward consensus would be to begin with some suggestions as to what kind of material is appropriate for a future criticism section.

How does everyone feel about this initial assessment? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty cut and dry here. Obviously criticism is allowed and should be included. As I have said before, I am no big fan of The History Channel. Wikipedia is not an attack site however and content must maintain a neutral point of view, making sure not to give undue weight to any one area of a topic, including criticism. There's no issue with adding criticism, but what was going on was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. There's really not much to mediate here, include some criticism, warn the genius at the IP to stop being disruptive and start being productive and let's move on with it. IvoShandor 16:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are okay, though they sometimes turn into troll magnets. The article already includes the "Hitler Channel" thing, which is probably the most prominent dig at the channel and easily sourced (the article already has a typical source). Western and recentist bias is also mentioned in the article already, and this should be easy to support, too. I assume we could toss in some "commercializing" and "sensationalizing" of history from somewhere. The wiggier stuff on the channel about conspiracy theories and such has probably gotten some bashing – the article already mentions the further-out shows in passing, but that could be fleshed out a little.


 * All this should be balanced, of course, by more favorable views. Plenty of reputable historians have appeared on the channel – that series on U.S. presidents was practically a parade of 'em – so I assume there are some favorable comments from them. Also, various individual shows have gotten good reviews from a number of sources. Casey Abell 18:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

From the talk page
This all was posted on the History Channel talk page, I think it should go here for transparency purposes. If it shouldn't be here, please feel free to remove it. Thanks,  Neranei  T / C  15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Hitler Channel" - a real, published and popular reference to The History Channel
All you have to do is search in Google Books to get a hint that this is real, published and notable:
 * Google Books, query "hitler channel"

The very fact that this notable phrase is not mentioned herein is POV. Stop kowtowing to THC execs. It's _their_ job to make peace with the public concerning their products, not Wikipedia. --24.77.214.137 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, the phrase "Hitler Channel" was mentioned in the article before your additions, with a cite. In fact, most of your criticisms were already included in the article, but in a much more balanced and encyclopedic manner. The only significant criticism of yours that was not already mentioned was the supposed "Christian bias", though the article did note criticisms of bias in the network's treatment of non-Western societies and customs.


 * The case has gone to MedCab, so I'm not going to change the article now. I invite your participation in the MedCab case. I would like to come to a reasonable agreement with the help of an uninvolved mediator. However, the article is currently a textbook example of undue weight, in my opinion. Casey Abell 20:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The numerous book references and undeniable popularity of the label "Hitler Channel" has a tonne of weight against this "let's play nice" bias which has nothing to back it up but ingenious perversions of Wiki-policies to deny published fact.

Christian bias and Paulist Productions
How clear does a link have to be: As you can see, we have crap about "Visions of Mary" and a link to the History Channel that chooses to air this Christian extremist drivel.
 * Paulist Productions "Product Visions"

Their mission statement is here stating clearly their bias: "Paulist Productions creates films and television programs that reveal God's presence in the contemporary human experience." This is only untroubling to the most extremist Christian and to those reading at a grade-5 level. To other less power-hungry Christians who believe that faith isn't science, and to those of other faiths who believe the same, this is a troubling demonstration of "absolute power corrupts absolutely". It may be disturbing to people to believe, but it's obvious that Paulist Productions seeks power through The History Channel to evangelize to the greatest masses, all in the perverted guise of "history". Not history as historians know it, but as religious schizophrenics and powermongers wish it to be displayed.--24.77.214.137 22:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that people should be allowed to express their opinions, and people intelligent enough to watch the History Channel should be able to pick up on a bias in media publications. Also, I have spoken to a few watchers of the History Channel who say that there is not really a WWII bias. Another thing: It is pretty much widely recognized that the Bible is an important part of human history, as it spawned one of the world's major religions today. And, since the History Channel is an American channel, it may have a slight Christian bias simply because the majority of the United States is Christian. Cheers,  Neranei  T / C  05:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So in your universe, you believe that Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics and Mormons all believe the same thing? If so, you're as uninformed as the History Channel itself. Try learning about what "Christianity" really means (virtually meaningless actually) before commenting in the future. The idea that "Christianity is what the majority of Americans believe" is lumping completely different religions together simply because they believe in "Jesus". And again, why should a history channel be plagued with Christianity?

'''It's not called "The Christian-Only History Channel". It's marketed as a GENERAL history channel... ergo, pure and simple, false advertising and deception. A mockery of both science AND faith of all kinds.'''


 * No, of course I don't believe that Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jehovah's Witnesses believe the same thing. However, according to religioustolerance.org, a site with much useful religious information, they define a Christian as someone who believes they are Christian. Thus, Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian. Also, not all Christians are the same, just like Sunni and Shi'a Muslims do not believe the same thing. And, I'm just saying that the majority of Americans believe that they are Christians, making then Christians in my book. And, you are right, a history channel should not be Christian-centric. However, we have to keep two things in mind. One, this discussion should be about the article. If the article violates Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, then it needs to be changed in order to reflect all sides of an argument. You present very valid criticisms, my friend, and they definitely need to be addressed. However, the whole article should not read like an anti-History Channel website, as some versions did. The second think we need to keep in mind is that this channel is catering to a mainly American audience, and as most Americans are Christian, as defined by a belief that they are Christian (and by the way, all Christians have common threads, such as belief in the Bible and a man called Yeshua of Nazareth as the savior.) So, the channel is more likely to quote the Bible as a historical reference, because people will relate to it more. And, though it may be false advertising, Wikipedia is not the place to point that out unless there is a verifiable published source that has confirmed that. I hope that this will help address some of your concerns, and if you have any personal concerns with me, you may speak to me on my talk page. Thank you. Sincerely,  Neranei  T / C  15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't understand this "Christian bias" thing. From what I've seen of the History Channel, it spends relatively little time on religion of any kind, including Christianity. Maybe I'm missing the overwhelming Christian or general religious bias of Modern Marvels or Dogfights or Deep Sea Detectives or Ice Road Truckers or almost any other show on the channel, but I doubt it. Did the network contract with Paulist Productions for some programming? Well, I guess so, but they contract with lots of producers who have all sorts of points of view. It seems like ridiculously undue weight to criticize one source of programming at such length and in such heated terms. Casey Abell 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Neranei makes a valid point above that this discussion sould focus on the article and not the subject of the article. In the spirit of neutrality, Wikipedia does include "criticism" sections on many topics - however it must be understood that these criticism sections are not dumping grounds for our own personal critiques and observations, but rather a place for encyclopedic information that is critical of the topic at hand.

IvoShandor is also correct, I believe, in saying that there isn't a whole lot here to mediate. It appears that this is largely a case of one extreme opinion being overrepresented in one version of the article.

All we really need to do, it seems, is come to a decison on what material should be included in a criticism section and implemnt the change. I don't think that any of the active participants have any problem with that idea? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If I may put my two cents in, I think that there should be something about excessive WWII coverage, and that there has been Christian involvement in it,but the whole article should not be a rant about the channel. Thanks for mediating,  Neranei  T / C  17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can drop whatever you want into the article, I would suggest including it in a history section that way we avoid the troll magnet that is a "criticism" section. Really, criticism does fall within "history," so it's not inaccurate. Whatever information is relevant should be included, provided it can be sourced to a reliable source and doesn't represent some kind of fringe theory. IvoShandor 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there no longer seems to be much to mediate, because the article has returned to a reasonably stable, neutral form. A "Criticism and evaluation" section (somehow that sounds better than just "Criticism") might still be a good idea. I remain concerned, though, that the section could become a dumping-ground for any gripes that people might have against any shows on the network they don't like. For instance, I think it would be way out-of-line to criticize a particular producer that the network has used, while saying little or nothing about the many other producers who have supplied programming to the channel. I don't know, maybe we should just let the article alone. Casey Abell 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we should speak to the IP user, but we will have to wait a few days as he is blocked for 72 hours. As for the dumping-ground, perhaps the article could be semi-protected? That may work. Casey, you're right, it is pretty good about neutrality right now. Thanks,  Neranei  T / C  18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Didn't know about the blocks. Thanks for the info. Not sure if all the IP's edits are from the same person, though there seems to be a fairly consistent pattern. The IP account looks headed for trouble, at any rate. Casey Abell 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I was going to ask him/her to talk to me about any personal problems they may have with me (i.e. responding to the "learn about what Christianity really means" comment- it has nothing to do with the article) They are editing as 24.77.214.137; I think that's it. Maybe they should be unblocked to hash out the Criticism section? Just a suggestion. Thanks,  Neranei  T / C  18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and created a "Criticism and evaluation" section. I tried to balance and source it as well as I could. Another editor has hung "bias" tags on the article, which I retained, though I think such expressions of personal opinion belong on the talk page. Technical tags like "wikify" and "cleanup" are okay in the article space, IMO, but opinions on an article's bias should be hashed out on the talk page. That's what talk pages are for. Oh well, let's hope the section doesn't become a battleground. Casey Abell 22:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may comment on the section, I think that it is good, and definitely expresses all sides of the issue. Good job, Casey!  Neranei  T / C  15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment. The section is pretty brief right now, but that may be a good thing. The section shouldn't dominate the article. Casey Abell 16:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I agree that it should not dominate the article. Now, all that's left is to make sure everyone else is OK with it.  Neranei  T / C  16:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Job
Casey Abell has provided a fairly well balanced section dealing with criticisms of the topic as well as balancing it out with some critical acclaims in an attempt to satisfy our NPOV policy.

It looks fairly well constructed to me. I would say that if no one else has any issues with this solution we can removed the bias tags from the article and consider this a "case closed".

Please note that the anon editor who had been involved with this issue had been blocked and unable to participate in the discussion thus far, but it appears that the 72 hour block would have expired by now. I'll allow a reasonable amount of time for them to respond to this discussion before considering it finished. ɑʀкʏɑɴ</b> 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrap-up
Looks like this was a fairly easy case :) The anon editor who had been opposing efforts to balance the article had plenty of time to reply to this case after the expiration of the 72 hour block, but instead appears to have gone on an editing spree and earned themselves a 6 month block.  In light of that development and the fact that the remaining editors seem to be in agreement with the proposed solution I am going to consider this a case closed.

The official recommendation is therefore to adopt the solution proposed by Casey Abell which has already been implemented in the main article. Editors of this article should place any subsequent critical reviews regarding the subject in this section rather than elsewhere within the article. Editors are also encouraged to put as much effort into including positive criticism as well as negative criticism to maintain a fair balance and comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies.

Please note that as this is an informal mediation the recommended solution here is not binding or enforceable, but does reflect the consensus of the participants.

I would like to thank all of the participants for their interest in resolving this dispute and helping to move forward with the article. Fortunately this turned out to be a fairly simple case in which most of the participants were already in agreement, nevertheless your effort in taking care of the situation is greatly appreciated.

I will leave the discussion page open for an additional 8 hours to allow for any additional comment before closing and archiving it at 23:00, 08 August 2007 (UTC). Any additional comments or concerns regarding this mediation after closure may be directed to my talk page. Again, thanks for all your help. <b style="color:#0000FF;">ɑʀк</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">ʏɑɴ</b> 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or a user talkpage). No further edits should be made to this page.