Talk:The Century of the Self

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Film: Documentary

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.

Untitled

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If we're all in agreement, then why are we arguing? Done and done. Tommy Socks 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Erhard?

Why is there a separate section here on Werner Erhard, a person who appears in a few scenes in one episode? It should be deleted. --Unesn6iduja (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Mazur quote from Harvard Business Review

I was searching Mazur quote from HBR (1927) cited both in wiki and the movie, cos I was astonished by its explicitness. But I couldn't find HBR from 1927, although in "The Harvard Business Review Annotated Bibliography" by Stephen K. Johnson (were one should find bibliography to all archived HBRs) I found 4 articles by Mazur, none of them from 1927 (one from 1924, two from 1925, one from 1960). Does anybody have have proof of quote validity, or at least title of article from where quote is?

(Quote that I am referring to: "We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs.")

Accuracy

Can we get a section talking about the accuracy of this documentary? --Annemaricole (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]