Talk:The Century of the Self

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I deleted the copyvio, and wrote s/th myself. Do you all agree ? I also hope s/one can remove the NPOV tag.... or can i do this myself ???--80.131.108.74 02:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

...................................

Possible copyvio: Big chunks of this article are copied from http://www.rdfmedia.com/history/TheCenturyOfTheSelf.asp Edward 13:27, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

We are not the correct place for POV essays. I've put the NPOV tag onto this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

However (I'd like to ask Ta bu shi da yu), what else should an essay about a POV movie say aside from the fact that the movie says A, B, and C about topics 1, 2, and 3? There's A) nothing in this movie that isn't historically verifiable and B) nothing mentioned in this essay that isn't in the movie. Given the nature of this entry, the only reason to tag it as an opinion entry would be if it had an opinion--pro or can--about the movie. That's just my opinion.

I agree with the last comment. How on earth can you you talk about the programme without describing its contents? And 'filtering' the comments into neutralese would be interfering with the subject. Putting a POVflag on this is just being ... anal. The article clearly states that the programme summary is not neutral. Garrick92 15:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree, even though I have never seen the film. The page relies very heavily on favorable quotations and reviews, rather than providing a clear summary. Further, the quality of the page needs to be cleaned up a bit, as those reviews that comprise the bulk of the article are a bit informal. The informal "we" is not defined until later in a separate quote. There are also leading, biased questions, such as

The Century Of The Self shows how this revolution in how we see ourselves happened over the past 100 years. It asks has this really been a liberation of the self or has it just made us more vulnerable to being manipulated and controlled by those in power?

Obviously we are being asked to sympathise with the ideas of the documentary. There are other quality issues, like the fact that another leading question, The people may feel they are in charge, but are they really?, appears twice. I would clean up the page myself, but having not seen the film I do not feel qualified. --Peligro

[edit] "Media Lens" Criticism

I really don't "get" that criticism. The documentary follows the Guatemala story as far as Eddie Bernays' involvement is involved, it doesn't go off on a big tangent about other U.S. interventionism because that would be irrelevant to the real theme of the documentary series, which is the impact of Freudian psychological theory over the 20th Century. It just seems like a bizarre, misguided attack, that's implying something about the documentary maker I can't even fathom. That he was paid off to "play down" U.S. interventionism? Denzilq 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely, the fact that he hasnt answered these so called complaints presumbably adds to his culpability. I'm quite sure Mr Curtis could do a very fine series on CIA interference in 3rd world countries if he chose, indeed he completed a very anti American establishment project about the marginalisation of Islam, however that was not the ambit of The Century of the Self.

I'm in agreement with the previous two posters, the criticism is so strongly focused on one section of the documentary, that it seems out of scope for this article. Is the general consensus that it should be removed? Mike.douglas 05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)