Talk:All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (TV series)

Music
I believe the music over the closing credits of the first episode is "Aua" from the album "Monokini" by the Franco-German band Stereo Total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.241.222 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In the second episode we hear "A Warm Place" by Nine Inch Nails. -crisinoz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisinoz (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts
Is it worth adding that in the second episode that Curtis mentions Chile's attempt model the economy using Viable System Model theory. I think he gives it as an example a failed computer model. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the summary, but the article is otherwise strangely empty
Having watched most of the first episode of this documentary (?) series, I started getting irritated at the authoritative tone, considering that virtually no authorities were cited for the organizing premises of the film, only rather for snippets of detail. So I asked myself, is this merely a collection of the theories, possibly brilliant, possibly crackpot, of Adam Curtis, and if so, why would the BBC air this series, unless Curtis was already renowned from previously published work? Is he kind of a Jacob Bronowski of techno-sociology, or the like? So naturally my first stop was Wikipedia. I can find no evidence that Curtis is a expert on anything other than documentary film making, a medium in which the filmmaker typically documents the stories of other people and their ideas. So without further analysis of the series, my questions are: Did the BBC produce this after reading the script or did Curtis produce it independently? Did either the BBC or Curtis think that his film being aired on the BBC lent it credibility? Has the airing of this film helped or hurt the BBC's reputation for presenting a true picture of the world? Has any scholar, economist, political scientist, sociologist, historian of technology, ecologist, or scientist of any stripe ever commented on the content of this documentary's arguments? So far we have a few reactions by film critics, some of whom expressed reservations related to mine, but can't we find reactions to this film by people who know something about its subject matter? If not, I respectfully submit that those persons Wikipedia calls reliable sources on such subjects may have found it either beneath notice or beneath contempt, in which case this documentary probably does not merit the space it has been given on Wikipedia, and should be deleted and granted a mention only on the Adam Curtis page. Of course this article should stay if the film has created a great stir, or has become a cultural lightening rod or the like, but there is as yet no evidence of that here. What do you think? —Blanchette (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Which policies or guidelines support your proposal? I can't think of any.  This is, essentially, a published work of entertainment whose notability is covered by a plethora of reliable sources.  You may want to revisit our policy on verifiability. We don't delete content because an editor disagrees with it.  The author is notable as is the production. If Curtis is guilty of anything, it's the crime of making people think about the status quo and question authority.  How dare he! Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Viriditas, I grant you notability, but as you indicate, its notability is as an entertainment event. I merely requested some commentary from those equipped to evaluate its ideas from a more scholarly or scientific perspective. Nothing sinister about that, right? The guidleine involved is the Wikipedia policy to represent all important views on a subject, with the views of peer-reviewed science and scholarship having the leading position and on down from there. The business about deleting content because an editor disagrees with it is a straw man, of course, since my personal opinions are not the issue here, but rather the opinions of reliable sources. But thanks for your comments and I'll watch Google Scholar and other indexes for better commentary, where so far all I have found are passing mentions. —Blanchette (talk) 05:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Blanchette
 * This documentary uses well chosen and evocative archive footage and soundtrack to accompany the author's clearly stated and ideas. The result is highly persuasive for many. There is a particular resonance for people working in media and for those with left-wing ideas. The series was popular and notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this article repeats the author's ideas without neutrality or supporting references as if the ideas in the series were an unchallenged objective truth.
 * The article could be improved by rewriting so that each of the author's ideas is attributed and where possible secondary sources are quoted that discuss these ideas. Jmerrionj (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that that would almost certainly be either original research or a synthesis. We can describe what the series says, and quote reliable sources that discuss it - whether in support or opposition - but we can't contruct a critique "ourselves." Nick Cooper (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to suggest that we should construct our own critique, rather that we summarise the published critiques of others. Jmerrionj (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception
Do not link to the wrong Telegraph writer again. She does not have a Wikipedia page. That is someone else.