Talk:The Ocean Walker

Houses of Parliament goof

When the narrator says there was three houses of parliment, was that supposed to be a joke? or did the writters actually goof an think there were three houses in parliment instead of two? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.237.75 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a joke but this article does not correct their mistake either. Instead it seeks to justify the error by stating that the House of Lords is composed of two bodies (Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual). It's membership does not discount the fact that it is a single house and the Westminster system is called bicameral for a reason. (Bi meaning 2). Therefore I am going to correct this error.Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is considered the third house of parliment.

The Queen can hardly be considered a 'House' of Parliament. Although I admit that she is a part of Parliament. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

the queen is absolutely not a house of parliament but according to uk parliament website she is a part of it. so the goof is they confused 'house' with 'part'. that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.23.193 (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a picture of Charlize as Wuornos, not Wuornos herself. Check the images on Google if you don't believe me. --Leez34 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the 3rd house of parliament is the Scottish parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.67.141 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. The Scottish Parliament is a totally separate body. Quite how they got this wrong I'll never know... (Natt39 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm not so sure about the goof with the cameraman. When I look at it closely, it looks to me like someone walking by with a set of golfclubs slung over their back. Any other opinions? Technocratic 05:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The three houses of Parliament joke may be the last oblique Arrested Development joke to be decoded. The reference to "three houses of parliament" refers to the South African tricameral parliament which began in 1984 and ended in 1994 when the Apartheid regime fell. Although the character Rita Leeds is British, the actresses who plays her - Charleze Theron - is South African and was a child during the late apartheid era experiment in three houses of parliament - one to represent the "whites", one to represent the "coloreds", and one to represent the "indians". It was the only country known to ever have a tricameral legislative system. So it was a reference to the actress's country of origin, not the characters'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.34.43 (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think it is a reference to the South African Parliament. Granted Charleze Theron may have been South African, but her character states there's seven houses. It's the narrator, Michael, and George Michael who refer to Parliament (British) having three houses. It'd be a pretty convoluted joke to have three characters refer to another character's actress' native parliament, which requires specific knowledge regarding another country's system of parliament. I'm going to say that it was just a mistake on behalf of the writers. Potentially confused with the idea of Queen, House of Commons, and House of Lords, but as stated earlier, the Queen is not a separate entity in these regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bretj89 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg

Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg

Image:Arresteddevelopment-306.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Three houses of Parliament a goof?

I moved this so-called goof to References with this rewrite:

Parliament As a test of Rita's intelligence, Michael asks her how many Houses of Parliament there are in the British government. She responds with seven, Michael says, "Does sound about right" and the narrator interjects and says that there are actually three. The intentional, jokey mistake (none of them are smarter than Rita) is reiterated later by George-Michael. In fact the Parliament is composed of two chambers the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Doktor Waterhouse put back the old, incomplete verbiage under goofs (I suspect they intended to delete my rewrite but didn't) with the edit summary, "It's a goof. Unless you show proof that it was intentional. Otherwise it is your subjective interpretation."

Could you please help me out here? What sort of proof are you looking for? In other words, I want to make sure I use the same standard that is applied to all of the other 50-odd statements; I'm presuming it isn't simply your personal judgment. Is your skepticism rooted in the belief that the writers/producers/etc. would make such a serious and obvious error not once but three times? If it was unintentional, why do you think they repeated it three times? Do you really think us "yanks" are that dimwitted not to know such a basic fact of British let alone Commonwealth parliamentary structure? I mean, even though you are not American, I have faith that you know that our legislative body also has only two house (yeah, yeah, I know, Cheney thinks he is the third house). I've returned my "interpretation" of what is an obvious joke meant to satirize the characters' belief in their intellectual superiority to the mentally handicapped MR F. Thanks! ∴ Therefore | talk 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for what its worth, Rita does not show signs of mental retardation but instead arrested development which, I suspect, was part of the writers' intent. ∴ Therefore | talk 00:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

One last word: The writers may also have been satirizing/parodying the reputed American's ignorance of anything non-American. But I promise you that a) the writer knew better and b) most of us got the joke (not the one who thought the Queen was the third house nor the editor who thought it was referring to Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual, though -- gee, maybe the reputation does partially fit. ;) ). ∴ Therefore | talk 00:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points. But if it was meant to be a joke it was not very clear. Most jokes in the show are at least overt and this particular 'joke' does not fit with the tone of the series and it requires a large amount of apologetics on your part to defend it as such. I've no doubt that the writers of Arrested Development are intelligent (there are many very subtle jokes in the series) but this does not strike me as being in the category of 'joke' in the sense that you frame it. I won't revert your edit for now, but I'm still not convinced that it is anything other than a 'goof'. By proof, I mean that you must show unequivocally that it was the writer’s intent to make all of the characters look stupid (including Ron Howard who is presented throughout the show as an omniscient narrator). This is obviously a heavy burden but it falls upon you to prove it because the simplest explanation is that it is a mistake. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems here: By "proof", I'm assuming (since you didn't answer my question) you want a reliable source (i.e., a published, mainstream source known for fact checking) that quotes (say) Jake Farrow or Hurwitz or Bateman saying, "Hey, we intentionally made a ha-ha rib at the characters!" Is that what you are looking for? If this is the page standard, then, you are right, my take should be deleted. And so should yours until which time you find an equally reliable source stating (not your personal POV) that this was an error (preferably one where they say, "We've made a huge mistake"). For that matter, the entire page must be purged under this rigorous standard.

Secondly, why do you believe that the burden is on me? By your fiat? Let me explain why the burden is on you. I have a source: the script.[1] Next step, read said source as black letter text (meaning, a plain reading of the text). The script says, in a show that nary a word is not a joke, "the narrator (twice) interjects and says that there are actually three," "Michael says that seven sounds about right," and "George Michael says there are three." I claim these are jokes in a show that is, well, jokey. That is my position. You may mischaracterize that as a "large amount of apologetics" but it is, actually, a plain text reading. For some of us who don't believe that all Americans are dumbass ignorant about international matters, the joke is obvious on more than one level (partly a play on the assumption that all Americans are dumbass ignorant about international matters).

Let's come to your position. The writers made an unambiguously stupid "goof" (three times!) and the actors, Ron Howard, story editors, director, script supervisor, producers, show runner, production assistants, film editors, network executives, stage crew, sound department, cameramen, post-production staff, in one huge cluster-idiocracy (hey, it's America, right?) allowed such a flagrantly obvious error get by. My oh my, what an extraordinary claim. Wikipedia policy is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I claim that a plain reading of the text is, well, plain. You claim that the entire production, creative, executive staff are imbeciles. You call that the "simplest explanation"? And you think the burden is on me? The old adage holds: Just because you didn't get the joke doesn't mean that it wasn't a joke. That it wasn't clear to you is your POV and is (possibly) anchored by some personal biases that were aroused by what you perceived as a personal slight against the (late) British Empire. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You could try that again without the sarcasm or the personal attacks. This all boils down to our own interpretations. You think you're right, and I think I'm right. But you do make a good point about the context (jokey show = high probability that it is a joke) so I'll agree with you to leave it as you propose. (But in future you could tone down your language as you seemed to get a little personal and there was no need to do so.) Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. ∴ Therefore | talk 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not trying to be Americacentric. That American young adults are unschooled in international matters is a known fact. For instance, they are geographically illiterate, statistically speaking. 11% couldn't find America on a map. 29%, the Pacific Ocean. 69%, England![2] 2/3, Iraq, even after 3 years of war (at the time of the survey).[3] I seem to recall a survey that some couldn't find (say) Iraq on the map even though Iraq was clearly labeled. My point is this: The joke was a satirical commentary on this fact by ironically having the three also fail an intelligence test that a supposedly mentally challenged person failed (she at least had an excuse). My other point is that despite this failure of our educational system as a whole, this group of mostly bright, college educated folks that write, produce, supervise this show wouldn't all make such an egregious error, particularly when the joke can be understood as a satirical commentary on said illiteracy. Again, I apologize for my previous, patronizing statements. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You actually changed my mind anyway, so I guess these discussion pages actually do work. Doktor Waterhouse (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Notes"

I've started a discussion at the Project Talk page regarding the appropriateness of the "notes" on this page, though it may apply to other AD-related articles as well. My removal of them was reverted because it was felt by the reverting editor that I was making this page inconsistent with other AD article pages. Personally I feel the notes are WP:TRIVIA and that this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS scenario. If I don't hear anything back (which seems possible due to low activity levels) I'll try again at some point, I suppose. Honestly I'm not even sure this episode merits an article...there's no sourcing establishing that the episode is in any way notable, and simply being an episode of a television show isn't sufficient. Doniago (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have to wholeheartedly disagree with this. The reason that Arrested is such a well-regarded program is its density, and the self-referential nature of the show. Not only are the references (many of which have been recently deleted, I'm noticing) the lifeblood of the show, but they are what makes these particular wikipedia articles on them valuable. This is not "unsourced fancruft" as someone said, but rather part of the tapestry of the program itself. If a separate List of recurring jokes in Arrested Development article needs to start, then so be it, but given a lot of the minutiae I've seen on Wiki for other fanboy-heavy wikis, to remove them with no other reference to them renders Wikipedia little more than a link farm for this purpose. Bill shannon (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)