Talk:History Channel/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

it's available in more countries

Here in Portugal we have thc

You need to sign your comments. Haizum 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A Possible Addition?

I was thinking about making an addationial paragraph that might improve the quality of this article. I just wanted to make sure if a 'cricism of the history channel' or 'viewers response' would be ok with the people who actually read these articles

The article already notes the channel's bias towards American and recent history. A "criticism" section would need to be balanced to avoid NPOV issues. I'm not sure what a "viewer's response" section would be, other than subjective opinion which would also need to be balanced. Casey Abell 11:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously _not_ having a criticism section is a form of bias and is anti-NPOV.

Launch?

Like the Travel Channel, I'm wondering when the The History Channel launch? I'm guessing in the range of 1992-1996, but I'd like a specific launch date from anyone who knows.

According to the NCTA website the network launched in January, 1995. I put the date into the article. Casey Abell 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man.

Added dogfights.

Seems this article need a lot more content and clearing-up.

TV Show on History Channel

At 5 A.M. (Midwestern time) there's this show that airs. It's called "Classroom" and it talks about people and events. Is there any information that I can find on this show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you saw was a Cable in the Classroom program, which is a public service of the cable industry. It educational programs that teachers can tape and show to their classes. These programs are shown pretty regularly on lots of cable networks, (not just THC), but usually at off-hours...like 5am. 97.82.247.200 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research/opinion edit obsession

It's clear that whoever is obsessively editing this page today has not the slightest interest in supporting any claims with legitimate sources. A product listing of a DVD, from which you draw your own conclusions, is not a reference. You are simply presenting opinion. Please provide sources for your claims of Christian bias and Hitler obsession.

A follow-up: The references in question are the two listings of DVDs for sale. You cannot use these to support YOUR arguments about the channel. This is original research. Please try to understand this very, very basic WP guideline. Williamroy3 21:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's supported by numerous book references which you failed to read when playing god-king. I can't force anyone to read but the book sources are right there in the article history: please click here, my child Of course, you can wage war against reasoning like a five-year-old and deny everything, even Paulist Productions mission to evangelize through its products and its proven involvement in the History Channel ON ITS OWN WEBSITE click here.

I posted this in the Mediation Cabal case page, but will repost here. 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 about the History CHannel 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. In other articles, there is a "criticism" section. Perhaps this information should be added there in a neutral fashion. And, I definitely think that a company's involvement in a channel affects its point of view, and that should be taken into account. Cheers, Neranei ^T/C 02:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have tagged this article as POV. It is far from neutral and is essentially a tireless rant against The History Channel. Undue weight has been given to criticisms of the channel. Nothing here about the development of the channel or its history. IvoShandor 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See applicable policy at Neutral point of view and the section of that policy concerning undue weight. IvoShandor 03:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably undue weight to accuse History Channel of religious bias: The Church of Satan on The History Channel. Yes, my bad, my bad. --24.77.214.137 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and don't look at this if you want to believe that the History Channel isn't full of historical inaccuracy: Ancient Aliens - History Channel. I mean, aliens, um, I guess they _could_ happen, right? Pass the bong. Can anyone say "LOOOOOOOOONEEEEEEYTOOOOOOONS"? --24.77.214.137 20:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't even deserve a response. While the channel may have its biases and inaccuracies it is certainly not the only thing about it, you clearly don't care about writing an encyclopedia only pushing your personal POV. IvoShandor 21:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

But you did, because you're "troubled" and don't understand why aliens don't constitute valid historical points of view.

I invite your participation in the MedCab case which has been opened about the recent additions to the article, where other editors have already commented. I agree that the article is currently an embarrassing example of undue weight, but the best way to sort things out may be with the help of an uninvolved mediator. Casey Abell 21:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation

A request informal mediation has been made regarding this article and a case has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-07-28 The History Channel. I encourage any and all interested editors to review the case and comment on the discussion page. Please note that participation in the case is not limited to listed participants.

I have placed an {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag on the article. This is not meant to prohibit changes to the article, and any editor should feel free to continue to edit during the discussion. However, I would request that major changes - particularly those relevant to the mediation discussion - not be made without discussing it on the case page first.

Thanks everyone for your participation! ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

salon article

I'd have to agree that the salon.com article does not necessarily use the term "Hitler Channel" in a derogatory manner. Also, I'm not sure a Salon blog/editorial counts as a primary source. Also, the article appears to contradict itself, calling the channel "Hitler-centric" yet going on to list all programming which doesn't seem to include any Hitler related show. MrPrada 09:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

706 hits at google for "The Hitler Channel". But otherwise, let the readers decide if the term is derisory or not. Zara1709 13:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I think, Mark Schone is reliable in the point that The History Channel has been called "The Hitler Channel". The remainder of his story does not need to be included here.Zara1709 13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I pruned out all the footnotes on the "Hitler Channel" except the Salon cite. One note is sufficient to show that the channel received the nickname – we really don't need a long string of footnotes. I also boiled the list of Hitler DVD shows down to one line – the footnote is available for anybody who wants to see all the individual show titles. Requested cites on several other points are now provided. Interestingly, I found a website that criticized the network from a politically rightist point of view on its treatment of non-Western societies. Often, the criticism comes from a politically leftist POV, which just shows that lots of people get upset with the channel (wink). Finally, I did some rewording to assert only that the network has received criticism on various points, and to avoid any implication that Wikipedia was endorsing or opposing the criticism. Casey Abell 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just set up a separate "Criticism and evaluation" section, per suggestions in the MedCab case. I'm a little antsy about such sections because they can become edit-war-zones. We'll see. I left the tags in the section, though I think such tags properly belong on the talk page, as mentioned in my edit summaries. Such tags are really expressions of personal disagreement by an editor, rather than technical fix-up tags like the wikify or cleanup tags. I'll try to put some cited praise of the network in the section for more balance. Casey Abell 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

MonsterQuest

i notice that there is no mention or redirect to the new show MonsterQuest on the page. to add on to that, there's no page for the show. would any good editor mind doing one or both? 69.229.11.163 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The History Channel Project

I am trying to see if there is any interest in starting a wikiproject for the History Channel that would edit all the shows to bring them up to standards set by regular television shows. I don't know how to start this project and would be interested in any help. Seantpainter 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Series, Miniseries or Special ... that is the question

Hi again, As I update this article, I will be reclassifying some of the shows. Some programs are listed as miniseries when they are obviously a series and vice versa. Since I don't want to be authoritarian, I suggest if anyone has a problem with any reclassification that we talk about it here (once it is done), it an easy fix to change it and since the ultimate finished table will be sortable pretty easy to reorganize. Also if he anyone has any suggestions or wants to help please let me know. Seantpainter 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So here is my first proposal on the distinction between series, miniseries, and special.

A series is obvioulsy any program that has lasted 1 or more seasons. Shows can be only 1 season long, so a show that is only 1 season long isn't neccesarily a miniseries.

Examples of History channel series can are Digging for the Truth, The Universe, Human Weapon among others.

A miniseries is any show that is not a regular series but longer than a special. It can also be a program that the History Channel produced with no intention of making more episodes. If a show is classified as a miniseries, it is easy to reclassify it if the History Channel does in fact produce more shows. I am not sure where to clarify 1 season series and miniseries, but propose that if a program has more than a certain amount of episodes (yet to be determined) that it be classified as a miniseries.

Examples of miniseries are The States, Barbarians I and II, 10 Days That Unexpectedly Changed America and The Presidents.

A show that could be classified as either is Engineering an Empire. Empire had 14 episodes total, far more than the maximum of 10-12 episodes that is the most that a miniseries will have. If the History Channel produced more episodes of The States or The Presidents for example, they could be reclassified as a series.

A special is a show that aired once and is usually two hours or shorter. Shows longer in duration than 2 hours can be classified as miniseries.

Examples of specials on the History Channel are How the Earth was Made, Little Ice Age: Big Chill, Warrior Queen Boudica, Sherman's March, and Washington the Warrior.

Again these are just proposed guidelines and I hope for suggestions. Seantpainter 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

History Channel HD

In September 2007, History Channel HD was launched. There probably ought to be a small section on that. It should include mention of the aspect ratio used on some shows. Cities of the Underground, for example, is apparently shot in 1.67:1 but for some reason is vertically compressed to about 2.35:1—as if it was shot in scope—with black bars at top and bottom and a History HD bug in corner, overlapping the bottom bar. It's weird and, in my opinion, looks awful. --Tysto (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

History Channel HD is my dream come true. Who do you get your cable from? Where do you live? 74.68.123.162 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact Checking

I removed two specific refrences to fact-checking. It seems to me that refrences to specific facts that the editor is claiming the channel got wrong, desperatly need to be citied. BoosterBronze (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Geo Beach

Why does Geo Beach redirect here? -Fendersmasher (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question. Apparently nobody has done an article on Geo Beach yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Christian bias and Paulist Productions

How clear does a link have to be:

Paulist Productions "Product Visions"

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.

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 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I watch the History Channel fairly often (when they actually have a history show on, and not something like Ice Road Truckers) and cannot recall a reference to Christianity. This doesn't mean there aren't any, but it certainly is not one of the themes of the channel. 70.63.94.187 (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching a show about sex in "ancient" Rome and they are making it sound like Pompeii was distroyed because it apparently had a lot more brothels and prositutes compared to what we've been able to learn from MODERN rome. They mentioned sin, which is a rather non-secular concept. they also harshly downplayed the aspect of homosexuality or pedarism and made it seem like the upper crust of the Roman Empire used women for not only procreation, but constant pleasure. unfortunately THC seems to be a network with a historical equiv of the movie "300"....

not to mention the fact that they treat christian mythology as actual historical fact, never offering anything resembing the other side of the story. ie. THC would say something like "jesus christ is an obvious, definate, and absolutely real and lived to be 33 blah blah". Anyone who was not a christian would say "jesus christ was one of the most influential people of all time, however, the First Council of Nicaea and the complete lack of historically accurate information suggests that the founder of the worlds largest religions may have been a figment of political imagination, blah blah" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.94.146 (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

I think this page should be redirected to History (US TV channel) because there's an article titled History (UK TV channel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.66.81 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of accuracy of portrayal of arms and armour

It is the general view, in the HEMA community, that the History Channel is highly unhistorical. Their portrayal of medieval and ancient arms and armour, is riddled with blatantly false nonsense. Perhaps that should be mentioned amongst the criticisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.29.142 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and include it, then. --PL (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

not a Troll, just asking a question

whenever there is something in the History Channel about WW2 and they mention the German advance into a certain country, it always seems like they say something to the effect of "the allies had to stop the Nazis......". my question is: does anyone know if this channel has been accused of being biased in any way? history is supposed to be objective, right? were all the German Soldiers members of the Nazi party? you never hear the invasion into Iraq as the "Republican advance". please fogive me if this is out of line, i am just wondering. Statesboropow (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the soldiers themselves were members of the Nazi party or not wouldn't have much bearing.. The generals giving them the orders and the chancellor in charge of it all were Nazi's. So saying the "nazi advance" would be correct. The chancellor (Hitler) and the generals were nazi's and were advancing. They used the soldiers as a means to do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

so then it WAS the "republican advance" into Iraq? Statesboropow (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Nazi Germany, we have more than one party in power. Saying that would ignore the majority of Democrat leaders who also voted for the war. Likewise, while no German could become a general without being a member if the nazi party, many US generals are not Republicans. Further, you'd be ignoring the other nations, like Spain and the UK who were involved from day one. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

nice try? nice try at what, smart ass? Statesboropow (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I might answer you when you learn to behave like an adult. It seems ironic that you start name calling after assuring editors that you are not a troll. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

gee i'm sorry. but "nice try" at what? Statesboropow (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, when you start acting reasonable, I'll expand on my non-offensive remark. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent response/answer from Niteshift36 about the difference. Seems to me that the "republican advance" questions was flame-bait and meant to start a flame-war. The question in question has no reason to exist in a discussion page about The History Channel, and the original question was answered also appropriately by Niteshift36. Perhaps in the troll in question has a question about the writing and recitation of the words used to narrate or report on a topic via The History Channel, then a letter or a phone call to the powers-that-be at A&E is the appropriate exercise to get the answer so desired.Coffee5binky (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying things like 'this side HAD to stop this side!' is certainly POV: it only takes in the vantage of one side of a conflict; it also promotes and justifies that side. Once a host on the History Channel suggest that a French Nazi soldier whom they had just interviewed should be held accountable for his war service. They certainly have more than a tinge of bias at times. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Er... this discussion board (like all Wiki discussion boards) is supposed to be about the article, not the subject! --PL (talk) 11:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus?

I'm afraid I'm going to need to see some sort of reputable citation for "the Hitler Channel." I believe I've seen this very same article with THS being called "the War Channel," so which is it? Either? It really sounds made up by an editor; I've NEVER heard THS called anything but "The History Channel." Haizum 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Look here: [1]. It was certainly not made up by the editor. (if the link breaks, it was a Google Groups search for "The Hitler Channel") (DrZarkov 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC))

Bizzarely I over to see if anyone had made a reference to "the hitler channel". I've seen it used quite often in the UK. I'll try and dig up some links.

Look here [2]Tjb891 01:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

--Charlesknight 11:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would need to search for the reference, the Hitler channel is not what some called it. It actually was referred to as the World War II channel or old war channel, prior to re-marketing the brand "History Channel" into something of more wide audience interest. Added programming such as "Modern Marvels" and other theme history, and first run programming features. Not as real as PBS or the BBC, this is commercial, but there is much real history, mixed with commercial - which can be questioned of many current PBS stations and has been somewhat investigated by congress.....Kidsheaven 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Hitler Channel" is hardly a figment of Wikipedia's imagination. Here's a humorous reference to the network's former emphasis on Hitler, and the most casual Google search turns up many more. As for PBS and BBC, they have been repeatedly and loudly challenged for ideological bias and inaccuracy. No media source is above criticism. Casey Abell 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the loonytoons extremist Christian bias. The word "Bible" is found in *EVERY* show, regardless of its topic. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Listen for it. Play this game with your friends on beer night. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.77.214.137 (talk) 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody and their kid brother and his dog calls this channel The Hilter Channel! Howard Stern and Robin Quivers have made fun of it repeatedly on their radio show over the last, wow, decade and a half! Sitcoms and other shows make fun of it all the time. My freaking neighbor calls it The Hitler Channel! When I was a teen, I thought it was The Hitler Channel, because everytime I turned it on, I'd miss the start of a show, there's Hitler screaming, and the little H in the corner, and my TV was old and cut off the History Channel words below the bug, so I only saw the H. Wow, what bizzaro planet do you live on where you never heard it called The Hitler Channel? Coffee5binky (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

programming

Dear History Channel:

Thank you VERY much for returning the history to the History Channel. History is events that occured in the past, not speculation about what might happen or sophmoric OHH and AHH babble of monsters and floods. Keep up the good work.

Loren Engle EZ Company

In the "Criticism" section, it might be well to include mention of their "From Peyote to LSD" program. They might make money off of this, but how many lives are they destroying by glamorizing drugs? Showing Hippies dancing ecstatically and giving Timothy Leary a posthumous platform in order to infect future generations may draw viewers but is a real danger and may result in more drug–related deaths. The media's insistence on glorifying the drug culture has resulted in the premature exits of quite a few entertainers and a great many impressionable young members of their audiences. The Program Director of the History Channel should be held responsible for any tragedies that can be traced to the influence of "From Peyote to LSD."Lestrade (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find anything positive about the drugs and drug use or drug-use culture that made be want to do drugs. From I was just listening to the facts or maybe we've got our shows mixed up. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict

Ummm, who put in conflict as a show on the history channel? I don't believe it's even their line-up I checked their listing of shows, doesn't show up there. Neither does it show up in their schedules.

Also if you look, it's original pilot and finale dates are circa '56 and '57... The channel debuted in 1995. So unless there was a time rift, the channel forgot one of ITS OWN shows, or I missed something. it definitely doesn't belong here. So, I'm deleting it. If I'm making a mistake, just fix it and chide me.

Walksonwalls (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I missed that, it was also placed in other areas of the list of shows section. I'm removing those too.

Why does this edit I'm removing smell like a sneaky vandal edit? Maybe I'm just being apprehensive.

Walksonwalls (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Combat or Conflict? Which show? Coffee5binky (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This Channel Was Called 'FOX History' circa 1998

According to this promotional VHS made by Foxtel, The History Channel was referred to (in both name and logo) as 'FOX History'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarenaustralia (talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the American pay-TV channel History and not about an Australia Foxtel channel known as Fox History. To my knowledge, History is owned by A&E and some other major investors who have smaller stakes (CBS, Viacom, Disney, etc.) but not to the point of control or worth mentioning. I have never heard of Foxtel in America, and the weathermap of Australia and the narrator's un-American accent makes me think that this tape you have is for an un-American pay-TV provider. So, no, the channel was never known as Fox History. National Geographic Channel is owned by Fox, though. Coffee5binky (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

the program on Billy the kid

I live in Lincoln county New Mexico and I hate to inform you but your story on Billy The Kid is at best inaccurate.

Im not sure if your portrail is suppose to be accurate as it was in 1878 or if you are using a set somewhere to do the filming but if so you need to do some more research and make your set more accurate. I have lived in Lincoln New Mexico for 61 years and I know what actually happened here during the 1870's. I have spent many hours in front of our fire listening to my grand father and great grand father telling me exactly what took place here.(not maybe but fact) The story gets more out of fact every time its told on a television program. I sincerely hope that some day it will be told accurately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.90.145.80 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2010 (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.

It's kind of weird these days, because The History Channel (oops, I mean "History") doesn't even show history shows anymore. I think "Nostradamus-UFO Channel" would be more accurate than "Hitler Channel." Now, can someone please steal that and put it in a book, so I can put it on Wikipedia? :-) Hanxu9 (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If it were only the WWII ...

In the United States the History Channel is popularly known as the "Hitler Channel," so often are der Fürer and the Third Reich the subjects of its programming ...

This is from The Mighty Fortress: A New History of the German People by Steven Ozment (N.Y., 2004, p. 3).—Indeedy. Were it only the WWII, with a cosiderate approach to all sides of the conflict, no one would call it that. Should we listen to the expert opinion of Herr Ozment?—Barbatus 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The correct spelling is 'der Führer'. We get some History programs here in Australia on SBS and I have also been struck by the Hitler/WWII emphasis. Having been a German, I once said to my husband that I do not know whether I shall be disgusted, bored, or feel important that the history of my former country is so overwhelmingly important. It must come from the people who fund the programs that preference is given to these topics. However, we have all paid heavily for WWII, even those who were born afterwards, some of them have paid the ultimate price. Maybe they should make a conscious decision now: This topic has been dealt with. I'd like to offer my material, which deals with Russian and European history, and has a New York segment. I'd let them insert a scene with the Führer where it fits (1936) if they cannot live without it. 144.136.176.22 (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"Jews did 9//11"

Should a reference be added to the program on 9/11 conspiracies where they tried to pass off a YTMND (non - serious humor website) saying that "Jews did 9/11" as a serious conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.10.107 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure they did. Regina Spektor is President of Russia, Harley Kulkin is the mayor of Pahrump, I have some nice Martian beachfront property for you at $100 an acre, and Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny won the 2008 American presidential election. Oh, and Adolf Hilter was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald, who's alive and is the owner of the website The Agony Booth!

Get a grip, dude! I don't know where that kind of talk belongs, but not the History Channel discussion page!

Coffee5binky (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no one seems to have any humour (not even 67.86.....), then stay clear of uncyclopedia. --85.164.221.69 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Reasoning behind the review

History, formerly known as The History Channel, is an international satellite and cable TV channel that broadcasts both largely fictional and non-fictional historical programs, together with much alarmist speculation about the future (see 'Programming' and 'Criticism and evaluation', below).

If wanted fictional programming, I'd rather watch SpongeBob!

This sentence is bullshit. Alarmist speculation about the future? No one knows what the future is like and the History Channel is no different.

As I said, Christians help found modern civilization and to bash them in this way I disgusted. People are just bashing it as the Hitler CHannel because of all its WW2 programming, which is a slap in the face to our veterans that fought and died for our freedoms in a better world. I guess you like living in a world without Jews or other people that Hitler killed. At least they don't deny the Holocaust, right?

This just proves that Wikipedia is intolerant of other viewpoints and the article violates the NPOV view of Wikipedia, just in the first sentence of the article. No one really knows what the future is going to be like. Maybe the point they're trying to make is, if we don't fix the present, our future will be very bad. That's all their says. That just slaps Nostradamus in the fix for all his wonderful predictions. They're just guessing the future, Oh and I suppose the future is supposed to all candy and smiles, right?

This article is disgusting. This just proves that you people hate our veterans and those that fought and died for our countries. You're just spitting in the faces of those fine men with your "Hitler Channel" remark. Military Channel has Hitler-themed docs. Why don't they receive this pejorative label? and preserving history that does not agree with political agendas is necessary.

The intolerance of NPOV on this site is a violation of Wikipedia of Neutral Viewpoints. This violates the very foundation of knowledge. Their shows like Modern Marvels are acclaimed shows that show how everything work. I see they're failing at reality programming. Modern Marvels is not criticized here as well. This review is biased and opionated, which violates NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to know what you're talking about. The first sentence is referenced to later sections, which themselves are fully referenced, as is the 'Hitler' observation itself. So far as I can see, it says nothing whatever either about your veterans or about Christians, while your comment about Nostradamus seems to fly in the face of the article on him. --PL (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm none too sure about the objections either. However, the lead is an accurate representation of the History Channel.

Not sure who called it the Hitler Channel, but I generally refer to it as the Mystery Channel owing to its propensity for blatant sensationalism and excess coverage of the woo factor. Just sayin'. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the lead representation is accurate. I don't see how anyone who has seen their 'Nostradamus' or 'Armageddon' series can possibly conclude otherwise (I should know, given that I acted as their official consultant for two of the former films). So I suggest that the banner currently at the top of the article be withdrawn forthwith. --PL (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble when you watch a documentary regarding Nostradamus on the History Channel is that it's very biased to the point of view of him having had highly accurate visions of the future, when in reality the linguistic scholars are saying something very different with respect to this.

This alternative insight says that Nostradamus was actually a 'social commentator' who used knowledge of world events in the past to form opinions about what would occur in the future. In other words, history repeats itself because human nature does not change throughout time.

This perspective, however, is opposed to what most believe about the seer and it could be that based on this, he may not have predicted any future events! The jury is still out here. But it is the duty of the History Channel to give this latter viewpoint equal airtime. This does not happen and instead it is put across that he 'must' have had many precognitive visions. Thus, the channels credibility must be seriously questioned! Happydebater (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that nobody seems to be supporting the current lead banner -- not even whoever inserted it -- I propose that it now be removed. --PL (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Revamping

Hi, I am going to be updating this article and put the list of shows in a table. This is what I propose as a sample: --98.30.56.22 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Ok thanks for the help I relly appericate what you have.--98.30.56.22 (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Program	Type	Year	Series Premiere	Series Finale	Hosted or Narrated by
American Eats	Series	2006	Thursday, June 29, 2006	Thursday, November 23, 2006	Mason Adams & Jeremy Schwartz

If anyone has an objection, please talk to me here. Thanks Seantpainter (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for doing all the work. The table should probably go into a separate article sooner or later. Casey Abell (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking as the final table when I get it done will be massive list comparable to a list of television episodes. But we will see, it might not have to. Seantpainter 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the first changes. The previous first column is now in a table. I did not remove the names of shows from the other column because I want to make sure I use it as a reference while editing the table but if it bugs somebody too much they can remove those shows that are already in the table (I will being doing that upon completion of the entire table though).

Also, I think I should explain the table but I don't know whether to do that here or in the article.

The explanation would read something like this.

Below is a list of television series, television miniseries and television specials that aired on the History Channel. The Table is organized as follows:

Program lists the name of the program. Type depicts whether the show is a series, miniseries, or special. Year is the first year that the show premiered. Series Premiere is the air date of the first episode of the series or miniseries. For specials it is the original air date. Series Finale is the air date of the last episode of the series or miniseries. It is not applicable for specials. Hosted or Narrated by depicts who hosts or narrrates the show. Notes list any other useful information.

Any suggestions would be gladly accepted on the content, and where to put it

Seantpainter 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I am going a bit overboard here but since I like to show my work I thought I would leave another note. If you look at the main list of shows you will see that they are in a table with the Program name first, the type of series (see the above discussion on how to classify something as a series, miniseries, or special), the year, the series premiere, the series finale, whom it was hosted or narrated by, and finally notes.

For now, if something isn't known complety, I am for now putting in unknown. If there is a ballpark figure on something, I have putting the date with question marks. Hopefully over time everything will be filled in but I think it is a better format than before. Seantpainter 05:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the dates are in italics? Why is that? Cccp7 (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move?

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved with no prejudice toward a new move request. What we have here is a move that was contested. The editor who made the original move says that the US channel may be the "primary tv channel" and the evidence provided by Hot Stop is uncontested. Based on all this, I'm reverting the move. If Banana Monkey or anybody else wishes to open a fresh request, go ahead. --regentspark (comment) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

History (U.S. TV channel) → History (TV channel) –

Move made by User:Bananas Monkey was not only unnecessary, but also has been done without any reason at all. Unfortunately, a redirect is preventing the move back to its original name. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 19:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC) azumanga (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the disambiguation page, it appears there are many TV channels called "History" -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
History (TV channel) currently redirects to History (disambiguation)#Media, which see. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Support this is the first one, and basically the parent of the others. Hot Stop 12:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – I apologize for not explaining the move (I forget a lot about edit summaries), but I did it for one reason. Despite this possibly being the primary TV channel, there is more than one channel called History. Bob Mono (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, The UK station has been viewed 3000 times in the last 90 days. The undisambiguated history channel has been viewed 65,000 times in that same period. Hot Stop 04:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to History Channel (U.S.) p b p 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

History Channel → The History Channel – {"The History Channel" (with the definite article) is the trademarked name of the television channel} — Literaryfairy 02:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

Support

I did some searching around on their website and I found them to use "The History Channel" and not "the History Channel" so go with the full title. Cburnett 06:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This Page is not from a NPOV

This page is not presented in a neutral point of view. The page starts off with "Criticisms"- Shouldnt this be at the end of the article? And on top of that the Criticism section contains completely unfounded claims that spread thru more than half the article- claims that it is overly militaristic and has a pro-america bias are without basis. Whoever wrote that obviously is not a regular viewer of the history channel. I have seen countless specials that discussed the horror and failures of America. I dont know how many specials Ive seen about the atomic bomb that stressed the devestation on INNOCENT CIVILIANS- and the Vietnam specials I have seen on THC have been far from pro American biased. Many of them showed our involvment in Vietnam and our illegal invasion on Cambodia and the presidents of the time (LBJ- NIXON) in unflattering light. And i remember the three hour "WORLD WAR ONE PRESENTED IN COLOR" special was bitterly critical of the war. Plus going to World War Two- ive seen many specials that had criticism toward FDR- many saying he "wanted an excuse for war". This entire article needs to be cleaned up.

-Anthony

Where'd the criticism go anyway? While it offers much good material on history, The History Channel is at times less than scholarly, speaking of the prophecies of Nostradamus, etc, as fact. Also, even if the channel does criticizes the US at time, the material presented tends to concern the US and as such is biased toward the US. I imagine that many historians have criticized the channel and that information should be presented in some form here.

Theshibboleth 20:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the inexplicably deleted (no edit summary) Criticism section:

Programming related to World War II and the American Civil War has long been a staple of the History Channel, often to the exclusion of other subjects and eras. This has earned it the derisive moniker "the Hitler Channel".

The channel has come under criticism for the hawkish, highly Americentric perspective of many of its programs, and for its tendency to offer rather shallow interpretations of history —particularly recent history, and events involving the United States. As with many other American-based cable programming networks, its programming is largely free of dissenting or controversial views. Many of its war-oriented programs, particularly those dealing with recent events, such as Mail Call, are criticized as one-sided and overly enthusiastic —even promotive —of militarism. It has also been criticized for ignoring the less flattering periods of American history, such as the Vietnam War.

The audience of the History Channel is overwhelmingly male, which has been suggested to be both as a cause and effect of its bellicose content.

I'm going to start looking for sources on the criticism.

Theshibboleth 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The history channel is not a non-profit research group, they are a company. A company that promotes anti-US views inside the U.S. will simply land itself with a boycott by patriotic viewers and its rating will suffer. For example compare Fox's ratings to CNN's or MSNBC’s, Fox at least to me seems more patriotic and there rating seem to show it. The history channel does though in many of its documentaries interview the opposite side and they are allowed to voice their opinions. Even with this the history channel never once to my knowledge has stated on the air that they are npov. Also to discuss the program Mail Call I would like to point out it is obviously not a in detailed history but a more entertainment oriented program focusing mainly on battle trivia and weapons. We must remember if the History Channels predominatlely American and British audience just maybe the audience wants to continually hear about how they beat Hitler and how they won the cold war and all the great technologies they invented and all the terrorists they are killing now. It is simply driven by demand, they focus on the history the viewers want to hear. Tjb891 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I have seen, criticisms belong at the top. Omissions seem more significant than content, to me. It appears to be Ripley's Believe It or Not! style history. Specifically, there was a show on the Spanish Inquisition that did not mention Islam. David R. Ingham 03:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The History Channels reputation for its lack of history (which encompasses both the poor scholarship and non-history related program) should be mentioned in the lead, but otherwise, it should be in the criticism section. I am not sure why the perceived American bias is the focus here. We don't have to justify the History as if we need to exonerate America(which is not on trial here). Objectively, the History channel focuses on American history. Some see this as justified or understandable, or even if they do, they may wish it would do more, thus criticism. However, as often the case on wikipedia, there is a lack of good sources. for example, like this http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/09/19/an-archaeologist-watches-the-history-channel-and-questions-the-part-about-the-aliens/ 188.200.194.26 (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebranded as History?

Was it rebranded as History? --Josh (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

good question, they seem to just be calling it "history" now as opposed to the history channel--Krautukie (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Should it be noted that people still refer to it as The History Channel? I guess there's no source for this, though. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Canadaion station

The current article states that

" It is often confused with an independently-owned, but similar, Canadian service, History Television."

However, I have never heard of the Canadaion station 'History Television', and I doubt that many people outside of the Canada/US border have (and I even get a Canadian station in NY). Perhaps this is a minor point, but wouldn't it be more appropriate and 'scientific' to state that the History Channel can be confused with History TV, or that a similar service operates in Canada under the name History TV? Tkessler 03:46, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

It never hurts to check your spelling, and your typing as well. 209.118.141.26 (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms, with book references to those criticisms, are being erased by vandals

Nothing more needs to be said. See how A LOT of valuable information is being erased: link here. The references have been clearly marked and they continue to be erased by trolls and/or bots. Is Wikipedia edited by the people or by lifeless programs now?

There are three main criticisms I notice, that are published & undeniable to any non-fundamentalist Christians out there, concerning the History Channel:

Hitler bias
Fundamentalist Christian bias
Historical sensationalism

To erase all this is proposterous and infantile.

The people erasing those criticisms may not be "vanadals", they may be directly or indirectly employed by the History Channel. 209.118.141.26 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The error about the USA congress convening on Christmas Day is given excessive coverage. That claim may be wrong, but it is not of major importance. The showing of lurid and false pseudo-documentaries about Ancient Aliens, UFO Hunters, Nostradamus etc is far more dangerous.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Pseudohistory?

Why the hell is the History Channel under Pseudohistory?

Their history is well-documented. You're just far-left academics intolerant of those that disagree with your viewpoints and they cite their sources. The History Channel has well-documented sources and their shows are authoritative and have won many awards for their documentaries. I suppose Modern Marvels is pseudohistory, even though what Modern Marvels talks about is how ever day stuff works, like cars and other household products.

This is stupid to put the History channel in pseudohistory because it does not agree with the agenda of Wikipedia. THe Pseudohistory article is intolerant of those with different viewpoints, like history based on nationalism and national identities that people have had for centuries. The review is unfair and biased. Those WOrld War II docs bring insight and fresh view to World War II and you should respect other viewpoints, which Wiki sadly does not do.

This putting History Channel in Pseudohistory category is wrong and disgusting and they have academics on their TV shows like anyone else. I am disgusted with Wikipedia and it's mocking of the History Channel because of differing viewpoints and it's not pseudohistory, like all the other bullshit like Eric von Danniken or whatever. Modern Marvels is well-documented, yet I see no review of that.

This article does not give them a fair shake at all and I think that the Hitler Channel opinion is biased because the History Channel has a right to tell people about World War II. This is far-left bashing of History and Wiki censors history because someone's agenda is being threatened and intolerance of other viewpoints.

Please remove from Pseudohistory category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patchman123 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the series on this channel are not historical. Of those that are, the majority are pseudohistorical - aliens, monsters, conspiracies, Nostradamus, etc. If the channel must be described using the word 'history' at all, it should be qualified as "pseudohistory". Personally I think that the term should be entirely avoided, and the "History" channel rebranded as the "Wacko" channel!Royalcourtier (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

History (TV channel) → History (U.S. TV channel) – There are lots of different channels called "History". This article will need to be moved to disambiguate against all other History channels in the world. 94.10.2.229 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Strong rename WP:PRECISE we should not be using ambiguous disambiguation. WP:NCTV multiple TV channels by this name. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. This should be fully disambiguated from other channels. kennethaw88 • talk 05:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Question: Is this article going to be split into numerous articles since it already addresses multiple countries? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A Franchise article is a good idea. We can split off the international section about the spin-off channels into a separate page (and just add "US" to that list) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support move to disambiguate from other channels such as History (European TV channel). - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ownership

In this age of media, ownership is important. While mentioning A&E is a start, it should have more information, such as the Viacom information on the Comedy Central page.

Did any one notice "The War Channel" came out of nowhere? It seems like there was history shows of all sorts, then one day nothing but war shows.

And a lot of the shows seems 'dubious.' ex) Da Vinci Code, Bible Code, Iran: The Next Iraq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.217.178 (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Slant?

I haven't watched enough of THC to know: Does it have a slant? This may sound like a bogus question, but if newsmagazines like Newsweek are supposed to present the news accurately and objectively but are known to lean in a certain direction, a history channel may too. If there is evidence either way or none whatsoever, it may deserve mention in the article. Minutiaman 21:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC) (belatedly signing my own edit)

I don't know that there's a political slant to the channel. Certainly the lighter stuff like American Eats seems to have no discernible politics except that yummy things are...yummy. Oh, some of the more sugary things come in for light criticism over calorie count. But that's really stretching the idea of political slant.

The channel's most obvious bias is U.S.-centrism and beyond that, Euro-centrism. (Even on the lighter stuff. That's why they call it American Eats, after all.) You're not going to see much on the channel about, say, the history of Chile or Madagascar or Sri Lanka. This is inevitable, of course, because a U.S. cable outlet isn't going to draw scads of viewers with a nineteen-part special on Sri Lanka a thousand years ago. I suppose some mention could be made of this in the article, but it might be stating the obvious.

Another clear bias is towards more recent times. The twentieth century, for instance, gets far more thorough treatment than, say, the Middle Ages. Again, this is inevitable on a channel that has to attract viewers, quite a few of whom lived through part of the twentieth century but not too many of whom lived through any part of the Middle Ages.

The reasons for these biases are so obvious that noting them might sound like captious criticism. What else would people expect from a commercial network that has to appeal to modern-day American viewers? Casey Abell 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but encyclopedias contain true and important facts, even if they may Seem obvious or are very well-known. I think CNN started out more dominantly in America but has migrated elsewhere too because of its international focus; I may be wrong about this, but the point in, a history channel based in American does not necessarily focus mostly on American history, especially given the specialization of channel topics. Minutiaman 06:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

CNN still devotes most of its coverage to U.S. and U.S.-related news, though it has a sister channel, CNN International. Anyway, I've noted the History Channel's emphasis on American and Western history, and on the history of more recent times, in reasonably NPOV language to avoid looking unfair or obvious in the statement. I had to partially revert some clearly POV language ("infamously") contributed by an anonymous editor, which had previously been reverted completely. Casey Abell 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think if the History Channel is going to be criticized for anything it should be criticized for its constant airing of UFO Files. That show has no place on that station, yet they seem to show it several times a day from what I have seen. They are having a marathon of that show today. The History Channel may spend a lot of time on modern America, but they also have History Channel International to focus on other subjects. I'm not sure if any of this belongs in the article, but I thought it was worth mentioning.-12/26/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.5.223 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the show. Some shows have a Marxo-Environmentalist slant, some shows have a Constitutionalist slant, some shows have a pagan slant, some some shows have a Judaeo-Christian slant. For instance, The Presidents has a Constitutionalist slant. That show about life after man or something, that has a Marxo-Environmentalist slant. Pawn Stars (or whatever it's called, the show with the tubs of lard owning a Vegas pawnshop) has a Enterprising-Capitalist slant. The shows about Jesus tend to have the Judaeo-Christian slant, the shows about about the Da Vinci code crap (my opinion) has a pagan slant. This channel doesn't seem to favor anybody. I mean, then show Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War. That doesn't slant either way, just reports the facts. They used to show 20th Century with Mike Wallace. Unlike other CBS stuff that slants left, Wallace never once bashed any topic, and presented all points of view. The show Conspiracy? has a disclaimer for you to come to your own conclusions based on the facts presented. So, in conclusion, the channel isn't slanted one way or the other, and it takes imaginative effort to see a slant! Coffee5binky (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Channel doesn't really have an overall political slant, but it does have a bias towards making money by any means which is why it has been so seriously dumbed down. 209.118.141.26 (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Life after People was not history, but futurology and Pawn stars is not history, but dumbed down realty TV.Trish pt7 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

History Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

History Channel's full name restored

As I've mentioned, press releases since 2020 began referring to History by its full name.^[1] Recent promos, including the videos and banner ads on the network's own YouTube channel, have also done the same. Conversely, I was not able to find any citations for the Canadian version (and my edits addressing that were removed for no logical reason). Thecleanerand (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

That PR clearly separates "HISTORY" as a brand and 'channel' with the ® symbol; this feels like change for the sake of finding something to change for no reason, and both "History" and "History Channel" remain in equal use. Also we don't care about press releases; whatever's on the air is what we call it by, because viewers don't watch a logline, they watch a television program. Nate • (chatter) 03:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Doubly so as I just noticed the PR is talking about a special produced by Ozy Media, which is controversial in itself as it was brokered programming that wasn't even produced by History itself and whose airtime was paid for by Ozy, so it's PR we can't even use for any purpose. Nate • (chatter) 01:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

References

^ The HISTORY® channel to air 2-hour special "The Campaigns that Made History" - Tuesday, 10/27 at 9pm ET; A+E Networks; October 6, 2020

[1] The HISTORY® channel to air 2-hour special "The Campaigns that Made History" - Tuesday, 10/27 at 9pm ET; A+E Networks; October 6, 2020

[1]