Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 February 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 17

U.S. Senators' term lengths

Would like to know when particular U.S. Senators' terms expire (Boxer and Feinstein), and is a Senate term 6 years?13curious13 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

US Senators serve for 6 year terms. They are on rolling election cycles so that one senator is elected in say 2010, another in 2012, an off year exists in 2014. Senator Boxer will be up for re-election in 2016 and Feinstein in 2018. Ryan Vesey 00:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

See List of current United States Senators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Need your help...

Being older and not that capable on the computer, need your help or advise.

How would we get approval to use a review by Jeremiah Denton (he is high-lighted in one of your articles) of the book 'Ride the Thunder' by Richard Botkin?

I have tried everything I can thing of with no luck.

Reason for the request: We are putting together a book of stories written by people who flew, worked on, worked with, or were saved by the little A-37 fighter aircraft. We would like to Jeremiah's review as a conclusion since it so elegantly states what freedom is all about.

I know you probably can't give me his email or telephone number directly, but any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ollie Maier

PS. I know this may not be the proper 'Contact Us' to use in this case, but it's the only one I could figure out to use... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.4.217 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

My humble recommendation would be to contact the publisher of the review - I believe in this case it was the Washington Times, in which case their contact page is available at this link [1] - I hope that this will be of some assistance to you, good luck in your quest --_nonsense ferret 04:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who

I intend to start watching Doctor Who, but was wondering if it'll be tough understanding the new series without having watched the old one. Also, is the new one as good as/better than the old one? Should I rather watch the old one first? 117.227.21.146 (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You can watch the revived series without watching the old series. Your second question asks for an opinion, which will obviously vary by person. In my opinion, the new series has better production values and better stories. There are certain older serials I enjoy, for example "City of Death" (which should have been titled "The Doctor Runs Around Paris"). The wife was never a fan until David Tennant's turn as the Doctor. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who has always been targeted at a wide age group, including children. So it can never assume that viewers have seen the previous decades of material. It does occasionally hark back to previous series, but never very strongly. An important device they've always used is that the central character is accompanied by one or two companions; these companions change every few years. So really they're a surrogate for the viewer - when an evil space monster bursts of out of something, the Doctor can explain to the companion "that's Zordraxxian, the most evil kind of space jelly there is" - and so tell us what it is, without the dialog seeming jarringly expository to those of use who watched the 1972 episode "Attack of the Zordraxxians". The modern version of the program (from Eccleston, the 9th Doctor) has a story arc per series, and you'd be best advised to start watching at the beginning of a given series, as that story arc wouldn't make complete sense without that. The old series was structured differently, with a named story (e.g. Genesis of the Daleks) being shown in multiple parts; naturally it wouldn't make sense to start at some random time inside that. The old series mostly didn't have a larger scale story arc (the different stories didn't string together into a larger narrative); the 1978 Key to Time arc being the only exception I can remember. Personally I think you should start with the Eccleston series (which on DVD seems to be billed as "series 1"). The old series is something of a curate's egg: some of it is great, some of it is mannered and pedestrian, and some is downright garbage; the new stuff (Eccleston onward) simply had more money and care spent on it, and its quality is more consistent as a result. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm answering all over the place: I should have been more organised. It's not really true that the old series didn't have longer story arcs across seasons, but modern viewers often miss them because they watch individual stories on dvd. There weren't usually single enemies or events across a season (except that third Doctor season where the Master is behind just about every story, and the first few Turlough stories, and the Logopolis/Castrovalva pair, and maybe some I've missed), but there absolutely were story arcs about characters which ran across seasons. You can typically enjoy and understand a story in isolation, but some of the emotions, motivations, and so on depend on what has happened in previous stories. And, obviously, who the Doctor is travelling with and why depends on previous episodes. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The local PBS station when I was growing up played Doctor Who too late at night for me to watch. So, though I knew the basics of the series, I didn't start watching it until the newest version with Eccleston as The Doctor. I picked it up just fine. Just realized, I have a Doctor Who t-shirt on right now. Dismas|^(talk) 16:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As the other answers have said, it's very much up to you. I've been watching it off-and-on since William Hartnell's time, and while some of the "classic" Who was very good indeed, there was a lot of dross there too - in the old days stories were usually covered in four, six, ten, or occasionally twelve 25-minute episodes, and sometimes the story was stretched out extremely thinly in the longer stories. The ten-parter, The War Games, at the end of Patrick Troughton's run was particularly good though, as I recall. Unfortunately, much of the first two Doctor's stories was wiped in the 60s and 70s, but if you're in the UK (at least) I know a lot of the surviving episodes are available on Netflix. Personally I like the post-2005 pattern of single or double episode stories, and you don't miss out much by not knowing the previous 50 years of Whovian history, though it adds a little spice occasionally if you are aware of it! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Very simple. When the new series was started it was introduced to viewers unfamiliar with the story. If you start with the first episode, Rose, of the Ninth Doctor, everything will be explained and you can watch the new series from the beginning without missing a beat. Do be aware that Rose is probably the most boring episode of the new series, but the Ninth Doctor hits his stride with Aliens of London and The Empty Child. Some of the episodes with the Tenth Doctor such as Blink rank as the best episodes of the new and old series. There are story arcs, but even so, most non-two part episodes have self-contained stories, so as mentioned, if you know the Doctor is an alien who usualy space- and time-travels in what looks like a blue telephone booth you can't really go wrong.

As for the classic series, I strongly suggest you start with either the Third Doctor or (by far my favorite) the Fourth Doctor. They are not usually flashy by today's standards, and some of the (especially earlier) episodes of the Third and Fourth Doctors drag. But the First and Second Doctor episodes are really for diehard or childhood fans. They are often about as interesting as a dentist's waiting room and have the production values of an inverted brown paper shopping bag with holes for eyes. μηδείς (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you're showing your age, Medeis. I tend to think that the values and characters of the fifth Doctor's era fit better with most modern viewers introduced through the new series, although of course we can think of many third and fourth Doctor stories they would enjoy, too. But the third Doctor's first season is probably an accessible place for someone new to older Doctor Who to start, if they wanted to be systematic rather than simply watch some greatest bits: it's a reboot, of sorts, with new characters and settings being explained. As to first Doctor stories being uninteresting, I dare you to watch The Chase and say that. Weird, yes: uninteresting, no. It's only the third dalek story, and yet they're already being parodied within the series. And Tomb of the Cybermen is an excellent second Doctor story, for all the unfortunate racism. Unless, of course, you simply find black and white unwatchable? Some people do. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I meant to say, a new viewer should start with the new series, and explore the old series as and when they get the urge (as everyone has said). And not only should you not worry about needing the earlier context, bear in mind that "canon" is basically a joke among fans: the series has never really worried that much about continuity, as opposed to simply referencing the past, and there are various theories (some endorsed by those actually writing the thing) about the impact of the various changes due to time travel meaning that nothing that happened in earlier episodes can be guaranteed to have happened in the past of any of the characters you are currently watching. There is, after all, a massive time war that appears to have taken place (or not) across pretty much the entire series. You can play games to make the continuity work ("If you're fan enough to notice, you're fan enough to fix it."), and that's tremendous fun, but don't worry too much about continuity or missing something. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)