Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 March 9

= March 9 =

Georgia the U.S. State
What lawmaking bodies has Georgia the U.S. State had?Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)


 * If you want to include Georgia in all its forms, then according to Province of Georgia it had a bicameral legislature—presumably from the colony's foundation—with the Commons House of Assembly as the lower house and the General Assembly as the upper up to the dissolution of the Georgia Colony during the American Revolution. In 1777, the Georgia General Assembly was founded and was a unicameral body until 1789 (the same year we adopted our current form of federal government), when it became bicameral with a Senate and House of Representatives. That system survives to this day. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie &#124; Say Shalom! 18 Adar 5775 03:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Government
Can all government-related institutions be labeled as executive, legislative, or Judicial? Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 04:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Those definitions depend on the rule of law, as the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the judicial branch judges people under the law, and perhaps judges the laws themselves. In a system where there are no laws, and the absolute ruler just does as he pleases, there really aren't any branches of government (or all branches are controlled by him).  Sometimes those branches exist, in theory, but have no real power. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ohyeahstormtroopers6 -- The idea of a strict distinction between executive, legislative, and judicial functions was pretty much invented as part of an 18th-century reform agenda (see Separation of powers); there have been many systems over the centuries without such separations... AnonMoos (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The division of government into "executive", "legislative" and "judicial" to some extent depends on the definitions used, and the lens of political theory through which the various functions are viewed. A good example of a country which does not characterise its institutions using this tripartite system is Taiwan, which uses a quinquepartite system in which governmental functions are divided into "executive", "legislative", "judicial", "control" and "examination". The two unfamiliar (to Western eyes) functions can be best thought of as "independent audit" and "civil service personnel selection". There are obvious advantages to a fully independent auditing function, and many Western governments also have such a function, though it is not regarded as a separate branch of government. The "examination" function has its roots in deep Chinese history: the Chinese imperial bureaucracy had an important function in maintaining and controlling social mobility, and thus provided a mechanism by which otherwise difficult-to-control areas of the empire could be managed and integrated into the body politic. In modern times in Taiwan, the Examination Yuan is largely concerned with quality maintenance. RomanSpa (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the United States, the States and the People are not branches of the federal government, but superior to it: "Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." μηδείς (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and generally speaking the states cannot deny rights to citizens which the federal grants. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct, but a convention of the states could amend or re-write the Constitution. They simply haven't done so.  The ninth and tenth amendments are not mere words. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to be complete, at one time anything not expressed in the Enumerated powers ocf Constitution did not directly apply to the states, it took the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the process known as "incorporation" for much of the protections guaranteed by the United States Bill of Rights to actually apply to state governments. Prior to the judicial process of incorporation, the phrasing "Congress shall pass no law..." was seen as applying ONLY to the Federal government, meaning the state government was free to shit on every right the Constitution guaranteed people.  Since the states law generally applies to how people's day-to-day lives run, most of the Bill of Rights didn't apply to people until incorporation.  For example, Congress couldn't pass a law establishing a national church, but states could (and did), see for example Massachusetts had an official state church until 1833; it was not forced to abolish it, but did so of its own accord.  -- Jayron 32 04:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. Only the First Amendment says anything about the Congress, the following seven amendments are along the lines of no person shall be compelled, denied, subject to, and so forth.  Here's the text, although you have to scroll down.  The Fourteenth Amendment's a fine thing, but the first ten were not without effect in the states. μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The actual question is "Can all government-related institutions be labeled as Executive, Legislative, or Judicial" It doesn't say federal government, just government. I would be hard-pressed to come up with any state government institutions that are not likewise either Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Back to the original question — the answer is "definitely not". See our Ombudsman article.  The Scandinavian countries have an ombudsman branch of government: it's definitely not legislative or executive, and it's not judicial either.  It's basically like the Internal Affairs office in a US police department.  Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds similar to various commissions created by the US Congress but who have what amount to executive powers with some quasi-judicial powers. The Federal Communications Commission, for example. Or even more to the point, the Justice Department. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But they're generally considered to be executive commissions. If nothing else, they all run on congressionally granted powers; they aren't a separate branch of government.  The only ways to have a fourth branch of government are to have it specified in the constitution, or not to have a written constitution.  A Google search for  found plenty of relevant resources; this book speaks of the possibility of an "integrity branch of government" being the new fourth branch in the Australian federal government (using "government" in its US sense); this one considers the Ombudsman of the Philippines a fourth branch.  Also note that Election commission says that some countries' constitutions specifically declare the electoral commission to be a fourth branch.  Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are functionally part of the executive. That fourth branch, if it were to be implemented, could be called the "Oversight" branch. Although they can't be totally autonomous, because they have to report to someone, just as the other branches do. The checks-and-balances in the American system theoretically provide that oversight. But we're not a parliamentary system. So maybe an oversight branch is more necessary in that kind of system. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Filipino system is presidential, not parliamentary, but it too apparently considers the ombudsman a separate branch. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * South Africa has the Chapter nine institutions that oversee the activities of the government and report directly to parliament but have no direct judicial powers. I have never seen them being described as a fourth arm but they don't really fit into any of the traditional three. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Pre-European Australian religion
George Frazer says in The Golden Bough:
 * the aborigines of Australia, the rudest savages as to whom we possess accurate information, magic is universally practised, whereas religion in the sense of a propitiation or conciliation of the higher powers seems to be nearly unknown. Roughly speaking, all men in Australia are magicians, but not one is a priest; everybody fancies he can influence his fellows or the course of nature by sympathetic magic, but nobody dreams of propitiating gods by prayer and sacrifice.

Is Frazer right about this, or is his racism bias shining through? Did the Australian aborigines really have no priests and no prayer or sacrifice before European colonization? --98.232.12.250 (talk) 05:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can't help on the magic vs. religion question, but in anthropological use, the term "priest" usually refers to a full-time religion specialist of a type which doesn't generally exist in "band-level" societies such as those of pre-1788 Australia. However, see Shaman... AnonMoos (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to why Frazer was either right, or he was a racist. It's a false dichotomy, and even if his statement were false, I see no reason why it would be called racist in any case.  I don't disagree with AnonMoos's link, but unfortunately it gives no sources.  In any case, by a priest is normally meant a member of a special trained bureaucratic class of an organized religion.  Shamans predate such ideas.  They are (counter to the claims of prostitutes) the oldest profession, a guild combining the roles of medicine-man, lore-keeper, and charismatic religious figure.  Often hey are berdaches.  I have no specific knowledge of Australian Aborigines, but they certainly did not have any organized religion.  Not knowing how the OP wants to define his terms, I am not sure we can say more than that. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also possible that he could have been right regarding pre-colonial Aboriginal Australian belief systems (not saying he is or isn't), but still racist. Frazer's model still places Europeans at the peak of civilization, and kinda assumes that the Aboriginal Australians never really advanced beyond climbing out of the trees (even though their ancestors would have had to have figured out expert sailing before whitey learned to quit drawing on the walls).  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wallace's Line which divided Sunda and Sahul (basically, Australia from Eurasia) during the last ice age was 22 miles across, and the ancestors of the current Australians most likely walked there from New Guinea which was then attached by a now submerged land bridge. Asserting that Wallace may have been a racist is like saying Abraham Lincoln may have been a child molester.  Unless you have evidence, it's a vicious slur.  And Frazer said nothing about Australians climbing down from trees.  Calling the rather skilled cave art found in some parts of Europe "whitey drawing on the walls" is simply silly, given such rock art is also found in Australia (and the Americas, and Africa), and the European cave artists were not at that time blue-eyed blonds. μηδείς (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (OP here, different IP) Sorry, I didn't mean to imply there was a dichotomy. I should have said that he could have been biased, since he calls the indigenous peoples "the rudest savages as to whom we possess accurate information".  Even if that's true, viewing someone as the rudest savage is not conducive to understanding their belief systems objectively. --98.232.12.250


 * Rudest savages in that context doesn't mean least polite murderers. It means culturally most like our hunter-gatherer ancestors; relatively uneducated and living in the wild.  He was not an Australian anthropologist doing his own research and lying about how brutal or ignorant the Aborigines were.  He was writing on comparative mythology based on the sources available to him and in the idiom used at that time. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt there's a single fact that is true of all Aboriginal tribes. There were something like 800 groupings, and while those living adjacent to each other may have understood some of the other's language and shared some of their cultural practices, those living more remotely would not have.  To the European eye they were all the same people, but each tribe considered themselves to be as racially and ethnically distinct as the Vietnamese and the Scots.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If the topic interests you, you can email Claire Bowern at Yale http://pantheon.yale.edu/~clb3/, tell her you edit Wikipedia and are interested in Australian languages (see her talk page offer at Pama-Nyungan languages and she will email you a pdf of Australian Languages: Classification and the comparative method (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory). The consensus among Australianists is that all the languages of Australia form one phylum, like Indo-European, (or better yet, in the mode of its distribution) Niger-Congo, with most of the Aborigines not in the northwest belonging to the Pama-Nyungan subbranch, somewhat like the Bantu languages are a southern subbranch of the Niger-Congo language phylum. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Frazer's statement about a lack of worship appears to be false for at least some indigenous Australian peoples. See, for example, our article Rainbow Serpent. Marco polo (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Frazer's opinions seem to be mainly reflective of the sterotypes held by some scholars of the era. You can read an intellectual history of the field in Bigotry and religion in Australia, 1865-1950 of the journal Humanities Research. See Chapter 4, Interpreting Aboriginal Religion by Henrika Kuklick, in particular. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Did the Australian aborigines really have no priests and no prayer or sacrifice..." Can't speak for the Australian aborigines, but the question of what constitutes priests and prayer is an interesting one. Personally I'd say Buddhism has no priests and no prayers - the monks are in the monastery purely to follow their own path to nirvana, not to act as priests, and since Buddhism teaches there is no god you can't very well pray to him. But what's a priest? A good definition is that it's someone who acts as an intermediary between humans and the supernatural, in view of his/her special gifts and/or knowledge. A shaman could be classified as a priest on that basis, and I think the aborigines had shamans (everyone else did). PiCo (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Indigenous_Australians, among some groups were people called Ngangkari who served the roles that shamans/healers/priests do in other religions. A shame we don't yet have an article about them, but it is at least a note.  -- Jayron 32 21:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

During the 15th-19th centuries, did European Christians recognize each other as Christians?
I noticed on the ecumenism article that actual ecumenism efforts began somewhat recently in history, which may imply that before that time, each "Christian" denomination was non-ecumenical, parochial, ethnic, and uncooperative with each other. Despite the interdenominational hostilities (Catholics kill Protestants; Protestants kill Catholics), did they nevertheless regard each other as "Christian", however wrong they might perceive other denominations to be on doctrine and practice? Also, did the interdenominational religious persecutions occur in the United States too, or were European Americans forced to assimilate into a melting pot of religious pluralism and tolerance? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on where, when, and even who you're talking about. "Europe in the 15th-19th centuries" is actually a pretty broad category.  John Dee claimed to be Anglican in England and Catholic abroad, and Paracelsus was comfortable in either Protestant or Catholic churches.  However, Reginald Scot blamed Catholicism for witchcraft, and made an early form of the Protestant slander (later codified by Alexander Hislop) that Catholicism is just quasi-Christianized paganism.
 * Ben Franklin's autobiography generally describes most American religious groups getting along, treating each other with a "live and let live" mentality. There's little point in showing animosity toward Quakers if that means you lose your medical care in the process, or Methodists if that means you lose the help of the best carpenter in town, or Presbyterians if that means your children can no longer attend school.  That said, there probably were instances where a Protestant businessman would refuse service to a Catholic (though under some pretense besides religion), since even into the 20th century there was a sense of "otherness" about Catholics among American Protestants.
 * IIRC, renewed studies into Gnosticism were partly the result of Catholics trying to accuse Protestants of being just another Gnostic group, and Protestants seeking to refute that. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Quasi-Christianized paganism" may not be such a bad thing. Christianity in general developed largely in Europe, and so it has various and countless allusions and relics of the past. People are always influenced by current events and history, so forming a new religion (Christianity) from old indigenous religions (European paganisms) might be a way to continue the cultural and familial heritage. I remember reading something about the Virgin Mary in a peer-reviewed journal(Kinship of the Virgin Mary), and it proposes the development of the Virgin Mary in Roman Catholic thought and culture: that perhaps the Virgin Mary is a transformation of a mother goddess figure in the old European paganisms. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a case for contextualization and syncretism, but Hislop and his ilk made the claim that the Papal office and the reverence for Mary were nothing but the continued worship of an imagined cult for Nimrod and Semiramis that adopted a Christian gloss, rather than the Virgin Mary being a part of Christianity that gained new contexts among formerly pagan peoples. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding IP 66's comment, compare the local parading of various Virgin Mary statues (often with oddly non-Semitic attributes) to the Roman practice of evocatio. That may be the origin of many non-historical and locally venerated saints. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As Ian.thomson says, the answer to your question depends on the time and the place. During the 16th and 17th centuries, when post-Reformation conflicts were at their most heated, Protestants and Catholics often did question one another's credentials as Christians.  Protestants saw Catholicism as a perversion of Christianity as revealed in the Bible, and Catholics saw Protestants as heretics.  Even in North America, especially in the 17th century, there was definitely persecution of people who did not adhere to the dominant sect in many colonies.  Pennsylvania, where Benjamin Franklin lived, was something of an exception in allowing religious freedom for all Christians, a fact that indicates that in the eyes of some, at least by the late 17th century when Pennsylvania was founded, Catholics and various kinds of Protestants were all viewed as Christians. However, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, religious persecution was widespread, such that dissenters such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson were forced into exile.  Catholics were banned from many colonies, which is the main reason why Maryland was founded as a haven for Catholics.  By the 19th century, in most parts of the Western world, most Protestants and Catholics grudgingly viewed one another as (flawed) Christians, but as Ian.thomson points out, in many countries where Protestantism was dominant, including the United States, discrimination against Catholics persisted into the 20th century.  This is original research, but I happen to know that a golf club in the New York town where I grew up did not admit Catholics (or Jews) until the 1960s. Marco polo (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Discrimination against Catholics at a golf club? What does that have to do with religion? Or perhaps, the people didn't want to associate with Catholics, because they feared that the Catholics would proselytize them? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Did Swedish Lutherans and German Lutherans see each other Christians? What about German Lutherans and Greek Orthodox Christians? Was there any hostility among Protestant denominations? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not Alexander fucking Hislop. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misreading, Ian; I've corrected my comment.
 * As for the follow-up question, certainly Lutherans from different countries would have seen one another as Christians. As for Greek Orthodox Christians, certainly there would have been a recognition that, like the Catholics, they thought themselves to be Christians, but 16th or 17th century Lutherans would have seen the Greek Orthodox as guilty of many of the same perversions as Catholics, such as the cult of saints.  Marco polo (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source with me, but I seem to remember that Martin Luther admired the Orthodox church for rejecting the papacy. Perhaps, there are some Lutheran-Orthodox connections there? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Orthodox were credited for not being "papists", but they were often still seen as corrupt for their veneration of saints, elaborate religious art, monasticism, and other practices without a scriptural base. Marco polo (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect the overemphasis on scripture may influence perceptions of the Bible among nonreligious people. Many atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, seem to take a very Protestant view of scripture, reading the scripture without any extrabiblical traditional interpretation or guidance from the church fathers. Richard Dawkins was raised Anglican, so he might have gotten this approach to scripture from his own childhood church. If he had been raised Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, then he would criticize the scripture by disagreeing with the church fathers or something. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Emphasis" maybe; "overemphasis" is definitely a Point Of View. Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the rhetoric of denominational bigotry, I think all Christian denominations have recognized that the other denominations were Christians... distinct from complete non-believers like Jews, Muslems, Hindus, etc. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there might well have been a difference with some of the restorationist groups. In general, I think the best way to determine if one Christian group recognizes another as Christian is to consider whether they see the baptisms of other groups as valid to their own group. If they do, then they would most likely have to be seen as seeing the other group as at least Christian in a significant way, even if it is also heretical to their own beliefs. John Carter (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, see Liever Turks dan Paaps, and run a search for "antichrist" in Reformation Papacy. Thankfully, the concept of "Popery-is-Antichrist" has been weakening for quite a long time, and it's remembered largely by the historians.  John Carter has a good approach.  Bear in mind that "John Doe is a Christian" and "John Doe calls himself a Christian" are not equivalent statements in many people's minds: many people use the former phrase to refer to people who follow the actual teachings of Christ and the earliest Christians, +as opposed to people who follow teachings that are significantly wrong (i.e. heretics), and who have been justified (sorry for the technical term), or to use the vernacular, are following the Bible's "plan of salvation".  Like anything else, of course, some groups disagree radically on what those actual teachings are; Oneness Pentecostalism is deemed heresy by most Christians because it rejects the concept of the Trinity, and different views of justification have historically been the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants.  Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The important thing to remember about the European religious wars (and religious wars in general, including the ones we find ourselves in today) aren't really about religion per se, except around the edges. The root causes of these conflicts are the same things we fight over always: economics, access to resources, political power, etc.  Religion provides a convenient excuse, and an ex-post-facto jusitification for such conflicts, but they aren't really about religion.  The underprivileged revolt against who they perceive is oppressing them, political factions vie for supremacy, leaders fight other leaders for land and hegemony, these are what we fight over.  Take any religious war, and you find the root cause is most often one of these core issues.  In the time period described, 15th-19th century Christendom, you find nearly all religious conflicts have an economic or political basis.  Take the Thirty Years War, often cited as the biggest and most important of the Protestant-Catholic wars.  Really, it was about internal political conflicts within the Holy Roman Empire and then with foreign powers coming in to take advantage of said conflicts.  There's a whole lot going on before one even gets to the whole religious issue: issues of foreign influence within Germany, the Aristocracy exerting political control over the Emperor, ethnic issues between Germans and non-Germans within the empire, etc.  Religion was at best an aggravating factor, or a motivation to fight, but religious differences are rarely, on their own, the primary cause.  It's a nice thing for political leaders to tell the people that will be dying so they themselves can consolidate power "Kill them because you should hate them because they have a different religion".  But that's about it.  Prior to being fed such propaganda by their leaders, the average person is too busy feeding their family and just living to care about such matters.-- Jayron 32 13:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela
What lawmaking bodies has Venezuela had, in all it's forms?Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 20:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you going to ask this for all 194 (or so) countries in the world? LongHairedFop (talk) 21:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, over an extended period of time. Why?2602:306:C541:CC60:ACDE:A050:9B28:BE5A (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, you can do all of your own research by looking in Wikipedia articles like "History of XXXX" and "Politics of XXXX" articles, and then following links from THOSE articles around. That is exactly what anyone you ask here is going to do, and now that you know how to do it, you don't have to ask us to do it for you... -- Jayron 32 13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, at the risk of angering you yet again, I would like to remind you that I am not forcing you to answer my questions. If I really needed the answers to these questions, I could just do research myself. But I think it's more fun to ask a question and get a helpful response. I won't complain if that response takes a while. Most of the questions I ask, including this one, are merely curiosity questions, and not just questions for a class. I can and do often help myself, but I also like to ask questions and get a helpful response. I am truly sorry if you cannot understand that.Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 18:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs)
 * How could being spoon-fed be more fun than finding the information yourself??? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does sound pretty ridiculous when you put it that way. I probably I should have done more searching on Wikipedia to see if there were any tools that could make searching easier. Mcleod Allen Mueller Hill, aka Ohyeahstormtroopers6, Imperator Universi 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohyeahstormtroopers6 (talk • contribs) Alright, look, if I promise that from now on when there is something I want to know, I will thoroughly search the articles, both the regular way and with the category tree, and then search the reference desk archives thoroughly, before asking a question at the desk, will someone answer this Venezuela question before it is moved into the archives? And, no, the Venezuela info I asked for is not available on Wikipedia in a clear fashion and I don't know where else to look.2602:306:C541:CC60:A9CA:FA26:7F7C:6DB7 (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)