Talk:Arrested Development season 4

Production Codes
I know that some editors assume that just because an episode is numbered first upon release that it is the first produced. Is there a source for the production codes? If not, I am tempted to remove the column entirely. At this point, we don't know what the codes are and we certainly don't know if Episode 1 was even the first episode that was produced. Unlike the last three seasons from FOX, production codes maybe unnecessary. Tsweeney34 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The production codes are found at the end of the end credits. Episode 1, "Flight of the Phoenix" is 4AJD01 per the credits, I added it once I finished watching the episode. Production codes would definitely be necessary for this season given they were probably filmed out of sequence, based on actor availability. I'll be adding them as I watch. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The order shown on this page is also the order shown inside Netflix itself. When I selected "watch arrested development season 4" in Netflix, it took me to what's shown on this page as 4-01 and as the closing credits rolled, it showed that it was about to rollover into 4-02. I say keep the order column, it's good.

TV show
This doesn't air on TV why is it categorized as a tv show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.23.106 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It does if your TV has internet access and the Netflix app installed. Any big/smart TV bought in the last couple of years has that. Besides, what's the definition of a TV show. You could just as easily argue that a DVD boxed set of a TV show isn't TV, it's a DVD show. Overly pedantic I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.81.232 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, just because it's a "NeFlix "Original"" doesn't mean it won't one day be syndicated on TV like every other show. The term is correct. It's shot and produced on a TV rather than feature-scale as well. JesseRafe (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

World Socialist Website
Please only cite reviews in the "Reception" section that are from reliable and well-known TV reviewers, publications or websites. The inclusion of a review from the "World Socialist Website" (including links to their Wikipedia entry and website) is dubious at best, and most likely placed by a member of the organization hoping to generate traffic to their political website. If every review of the new season were to be included here, the "Reception" section would be ridiculously unwieldy, so only reputable sources should be used, as is the norm on Wikipedia. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Film Manual of Style recommends a "reasonable balance of views" to maintain NPOV. Reliability of the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) has been discussed before.  As the website isn't being called on to provide anything other than a socialist point of view, there aren't any reliability questions involved.  The question then becomes whether or not a socialist POV ought to be included for reasonable balance.  (I tend to think yes, but there may be those who say that neutrality means no socialism.)  I'm honestly baffled by the outrage at giving links to the Wikipedia entry for the WSWS and to the actual review in question - this is very much standard policy for citing a review - and I'm not commenting on the accusation of bad faith at all.  --Nixin06 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a partisan political group's opinions on popular cultural helps maintain a "reasonable balance of views". The articles already cites a variety of respected critics and media giving different views on the season. This "World Socialist Website" is the fringe of the fringe of the left, not a well-known and respected source such as the New York Times, a mainstream pop culture publication such as Variety The A.V. Club or an aggregator such as Metacritic. Quoting the WSW critic here implies that the site has equal weight and merit as these other sites in the world of pop culture/TV reportage. This simply is no the case. If this was an article about Trotsky's leadership of the red army during the Kronstadt events or the various groupuscules claiming the lineage of the Fourth International they could be a useful source. But as it stands their views simply do not hold the same weight as those of more respected critics and publications. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see the problem. The Wikipedia policy on weight is that "we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."  Marxism, as a cultural perspective, is certainly a respectable minority view and the World Socialist Web Site is the most prominent Marxist news site. --Nixin06 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There was nothing wrong (and nothing socialist) about the review. I don't know who first put it up, but I saw the edit summary and Blackmetalskinhead seems to have had a knee-jerk reaction to "bad words" being on wikipedia and decided to censor it to fit his worldview, where socialists don't watch TV or read critics. Blackmetalskinhead also violated 3RR. I wonder if any other editors here think this issue is worth pursuing in an ANI or will be willing to put it back in other than me (since I don't want to 3RR myself). But I have strange feeling that references to WP:OWN, WP:CENSOR, AND WP:NEUTRAL will fall on deaf eyes here... JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I made the original edit and have reverted the deletion (once). My sense of it is that Blackmetalskinhead was editing in good faith.  It's a mistake but not a terrible one to think that only critics with big audiences should be represented in the Response section, and if one thought that then the rest flows out naturally.  I should add that while I agree that there's nothing wrong with the review, it definitely takes a socialist position on the arts in the tradition of critics like Voronsky.  If it didn't, it wouldn't really be worth adding. --Nixin06 (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice you had already reverted when I made the comment. I think I had an old Watchlist tab open and only refreshed this page without seeing that one. I had never heard of WSWS prior to this, but as the Reception section was not-overlong when that was added and it wasn't a spurious local-newspaper or blog-post or redlink fanboy reaction, it seemed to have merit to me, so I believe it should stand. I don't, however, think BMSH was editing in good faith, solely due to the initial edit summary and supported by his/her vehemence in reverting and talk page action. Wikipedian-to-wikipedian, I would suggest you try to make a few more edits across a greater article spectrum, though, as your edit history contains a lot of addition of WSWS reviews and a quick view would make it seem like you may have a COI or at least interest in aggrandizing WSWS's profile on the site. JesseRafe (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, as JesseRafe seems to have a knee-jerk reaction to my username and is therefore making a lot of assumptions about who I am and what I stand for: I've been involved in far left politics since 1994. I've written for a few more-or-less well-known publications, run a radical literature distro, volunteered at an infoshop, spent years doing work with Food Not Bombs, protested the WTo & the FTAA, etc. Skinhead DOES NOT equal racist or right wing. My removal of the link has nothing to do with partisan politics, and I'm certainly no right-winger. However, Wikipedia should not be used as a platform to promote ANY agenda, but rather be a repository of information. This appears to be just one of many cases of members of various groups, including the WSW, attempting to generate traffic to their sites by linking various articles back to them. I would also strongly agree with Saedon that "[t]his looks like pretty obvious WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE publication." And I also agree with Saedon that "[i]f the argument is that it's not because it's a socialist publication then this critic is on par with any other random magazine critic and is superfluous." I have to thank this user for making the same point with far greater clarity than I did. The point is that this review does not add to the quality of the article in any meaningful way. Its inclusion by Nixin06 seems to be as a plug for the group, a way to direct more traffic their way. I would be greatly surprised if he is not an active member of the group.


 * Also, I do not believe I violated 3RR. "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". I made 2 reverts, not 3 or more. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I don't give two craps about your username and despite that I also probably know far more [about] skinheads than you. Talk about assumptions. You mention "greater clarity than [you] did", your edit summaries' clarity speak for themselves. You saw the word "socialist" and freaked out. If it was another review from a site you were unfamiliar with would you had removed it with such gusto? No, obviously not. Even though there was nothing socialist in the review or its mention in the article, you saw the word "socialist" as propagating a socialist agenda in and of itself. End of story, we're moving on. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are the one saying that I "censor[ed] it to fit [my] worldview", so I find that dubious. And if you want to talk about the finer points of Trojan Records reggae, the spirit of '69, early '80s US skinhead hardcore or early Cock Sparrer singles some time I'd be happy to oblige ;) But no, I didn't "freak out". I was simply looking at the entry for a season I had enjoyed and noticed something that simply did not belong. It wasn't "the word 'socialist'" that "freaked [me] out". A link to a review any fringe publication/site or random blog would have gotten the same reaction. I would really appreciate if you would stop smearing me here. I think Saedon really did sum it up well. Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This looks like pretty obvious WP:UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE publication. Just because something is verifiable does not mean we should publish it - verifiability is merely a prerequisite for inclusion, not a guarantee. In this instance I can't see what it adds to an article not relevant to socialism to include the views of a socialist publication. If the argument is that it's not because it's a socialist publication then this critic is on par with any other random magazine critic and is superfluous. Either way, my !vote is to remove Sædon talk  02:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm just having boatloads of trouble seeing how the source material being "socialist" is at all relevant. If you want to make the case that the review is not noteworthy, ok. But if the problem is (and undoubtedly was BMSH's problem) that it's a socialist critic, that is by no means a reason to remove. It seems to add to the conversation and it's not redundant or superfluous. It makes a good point. "What's the most important thing?" "Breakfast?" "No, family." And here's a whole season of a show that's always been about family presented, for the most part, without family. Is that a valid critique? Yes. Is that a noteworthy critique? Maeby. Is it a socialist[ic?] critique? Not in anyway I can figure it. Keep as it's not superfluous as stated above and not socialist/political as the initial cause for removal claimed. JesseRafe (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Marxism does not come under the category of WP:FRINGE. It's a significant minority view.  (Recall Wales' advice - prominent adherents of Marxism are fairly easy to name.)  As for what this article has to do with socialism?  Marx and Engels wrote extensively on the arts, as did Trotsky.  Socialist-minded artists include Bertolt Brecht, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Dalton Trumbo, and Oscar Wilde, not to mention the cliche of "fellow travellers" among artistic circles.  If the argument is that socialist critics are given undue weight in the article, I am sensitive to that - but can it really be said that one example is excessive, given what else is there?  (Keep, of course.) --Nixin06 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CommentOK, now I don't know if you are trying to force an agenda here - are you plugging the site or socialism? One of them is far more out of place in this discussion than the other. I can't imagine what Trotsky or Marx or Wilde have to do with film criticism on the internet. Either it's a valid review from a reputable source or you're over-valuing artistic contributions from people based on political ideologies (in addition to or despite their artistic merits -- or are you claiming that the two are not independent?). It can't be both. JesseRafe (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that a trivial or superficial review ought to be fit for inclusion on political grounds. But nobody really disputes the quality of the review.  (At worst it's said to be as good as any other.)  I was also offering to compromise if there's a real complaint about undue weight, although at the moment I don't see a strong case.  --Nixin06 (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Cast
How exactly are Guest Cast and Recurring Guest Cast defined? Isla Fisher as Rebel Alley is definitely a recurring character, and Ed Helms as James Carr is not, among several other incorrect placements. Reywas92 Talk 15:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I started that separation but under the title "Returning guest cast" which alluded to seasons 1-3. You're right that right now it makes no sense. Also, it's hard to figure out how to divide the cameos from the substantial stars. Crews and Fischer are significant parts of season 4. Krasinski has 3 seconds of screentime. Having 4 sections (cast, returning guest stars, guest stars, cameos) may be too much, but I do believe that separating the actors playing the same characters from prior years from new guest stars does have value. JesseRafe (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DVD release?
Has there been any announcement of a DVD release? Keep in mind other Netflix shows such as House of Cards and Orange is the New Black are available on DVD, so there's no reason for A.D. not to be too. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrested Development (season 4). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614225052/http://whatculture.com/tv/arrested-development-season-4-review-the-triumphant-return-of-the-bluths.php to http://whatculture.com/tv/arrested-development-season-4-review-the-triumphant-return-of-the-bluths.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724220153/http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/arrested-movie-developing-maeby.php to http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/arrested-movie-developing-maeby.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Fateful Consequences Critical Reception
The season four remix has been met with negative critical reception. Could we add a brief description of this at the bottom of the “Critical Reception” section? - Theironminer (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)