Miscellaneous desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

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.

April 28

American churches and skin color

I am perplexed at the fact that this US poll and many similar diagrams separate Protestant religious denominations into a skin color issue. But it rarely happens to any other religious groups. For example you usually don't hear "black jew" or "black catholic" or "hispanic mormon". But Protestants get separated by colour. Why is that? Jartgina (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are Black Muslims, though. StuRat (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The data come from the "Public Religion Research Institute" so it is probably done that way to emphasis a particular point of view or stance. MilborneOne (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't a lot of Black Jews (in America), for one thing. —Tamfang (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That will be news to Sammy Davis, Jr. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under no reasonable definition is the number "one" considered "a lot" --Jayron 32 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the opposite of news? I think that's what it would be to Mr Davis. —Tamfang (talk) 07:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading this right, there are only 3 million Catholics of African descent in the US out of the 21 million Catholics in the Caribbean and North America. So, again, a fairly small percentage. Our own article says that Black Catholics account for only 4% of the Catholic population. Dismas|^(talk) 09:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 million 21millionths is 14%, which is quite significant. DuncanHill (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the African-American Catholics in the United States are in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Archdiocese of Washington, which are in historic Maryland, and are descended from slaves who took the Catholic religion of their Maryland Catholic masters. I haven't checked the ethnic statistics for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, the other archdiocese that had a significant number of Catholic planters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that diagram you cite did seperate Catholic in to a Hispanic Catholic and white Catholic. I presume white theoretically means non Hispanic white. As for black, either they are actually in the white (so it's really non Hispanic, mostly white), or they don't show up due to being too small a percentage. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also this PEW survey that shows that 78% of African Americans are protestants. Even with 40,000 interviewees, the PRRI surevey that the Huffington Post article is based upon would have too few "black jews" or "hispanic mormon" for statistically meaningful results. And black catholics are probably covered by the "other non-white catholic" category in the data. Abecedare (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right on the last point, somehow I missed that multiple times (even though I saw it when noting the minimal variance and disagreement with the official Catholic position but still didn't realise my mistake). Nil Einne (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is frankly tough to spot in the Huffington Post graphic. The categorization is much easier to follow and understand in the table on the PRRI page. Abecedare (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue dates back to the civil war and segregation. Read, for example, Southern Baptist Convention. (I'll repeat my anecdote, when my white cousin got his black girlfriend pregnant, they decided to marry. There was some trepidation in telling my grandmother, but she was not at all alarmed, and her response was, "As long as the baby comes out Catholic.") μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Babies don't come out Catholic. They become Catholic a few months later if the parents make that decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain the papal seal? μηδείς (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question about the papal seal? The seal is broken when the pope dies, and a new one created when the next pope is elected, and the pope wasn't born Catholic either, only baptized Catholic shortly after birth. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they smack the baby's behind, to bring out the patterns on the cheeks saying imprimatur and nihil obstat. If the nurse doesn't find those, they may look for witch marks. μηδείς (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seals eat fish every day of the week, not just Fridays. Mustn't be catholic then. --Jayron 32 17:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule against any Catholic eating fish seven days a week. There is only a former rule against eating meat on Friday, and a current rule against eating meat on Fridays in Lent. However, the seals are not Catholic unless they were either baptized Catholic or baptized non-Catholic and confirmed Catholic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue actually dates back farther than the U.S. Civil War. See our article Black church. African Americans founded their own churches as early as the 18th century, basically in response to white racism. According to this study a majority of African Americans belonged to "historically black churches" as recently as 2009. Marco polo (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Medeis implied, several Protestant denominations split prior to the American Civil War. The Methodists, in particular, had a Northern majority in the general conference, which forbid the ownership of slaves. The Southern Methodists then split, and remained separate until the mid-twentieth century. The Presbyterians similarly split. The Episcopalians did not have this issue, because they had a Southern majority, since the Southern colonies were historically Anglican while the Northern colonies were historically one or another denomination of Protestant (and Maryland was historically Catholic). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Medeis hits the nail square on the head. In the North, church congregations tended to be more integrated, so groups like the American Baptist Churches USA, the Northern split of the Baptist church, have more integrated congregations; Martin Luther King Jr., for example, got his theological training at Crozer Theological Seminary, historically associated with the Northern Baptists; many white ministers also got their training there, such integration would have been unheard of in the south. In the South, however, blacks were systemically excluded from white churches and white seminaries, so parallel African-American denominations developed alongside the White ones, for example the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. is the historically African-American Baptist convention parallel to the historically white Southern Baptist Convention, or the African Methodist Episcopal Church and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church grew up in parallel to the United Methodist Church. The vast bulk of black Americans are Protestants, and since the U.S. society was segregated for so many years, religious life was as well. It didn't magically become less so when civil rights legislation was passed, traditions still hold, so while today there is more integration than in the past, more is a relative term, and in religious life, where people attend the churches and denominations of their parents (mostly), segregation remains the norm for protestants in the U.S. Whether or not this situation is ideal or desirable is a different question, but it undoubtedly is a fact that U.S. protestant churches are still segregated, and understanding why is important to understanding American history and culture. Also, it's important to note that church segregation still exists in the North, but many of these predominantly single race churches are often due to southern blacks moving back north and taking their denominations with them. See, for example, Great Migration (African American)--Jayron 32 17:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would qualify Jayron32's use of the phrase "church segregation" by noting that very few churches practice any sort of official race-based exclusionary policy, and the word "segregation" can be controversial in this situation. However, Jayron32 and other editors are right that denominations, and churches within denominations, mostly reflect history. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No meaningful denomination practices prejudicial discrimination today. That doesn't mean that there does not exist segregation. The word segregation means separation and one cannot walk into 3-4 random churches in the southern U.S. in supposedly racially diverse areas, and then not declare that the races are separated within their churches. Clearly, denominations are still segregated. Probably to almost a person, the leadership thereof wishes it were not so. But that doesn't mean that we pretend that the churches themselves show good racial mixing. They don't. That's a fact, Jack. Now, that may not be because the churches have any official policy of exclusion; there are historical reasons why they are still segregated today. That reason is not "There is racially prejudiced policies today". The reason is "There were racially prejudiced policies in the past, and that has carried down to influence the current situation." But one cannot say the churches themselves are fully integrated. Anyone who actually looks would not describe the situation that way. --Jayron 32 14:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case in Ohio was rather unexpected news at the time. I was trying to find out if the pastor was fired or the congregation split. (I seem to remember there was some later fallout.) In any case, it was an interesting take-away that Baptists have tiny, but dynamic souls. μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'affaire Grégory

See fr:Affaire Grégory. I'm surprised that there seems to be no article on the English Wikipedia about this celebrated French murder case. There's just a brief mention of the case at Vologne#Grégory Villemin. Am I missing something? --Viennese Waltz 09:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary of the case can be found in our article List of unsolved deaths, section 1980s, but no article in its own right, no. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're allowed to remedy that problem. You don't even need out permission, and no one here will stop you from doing so. --Jayron 32 17:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for requesting translation of an article. I don't happen to know the details, but the Help Desk would be a good way to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could I mix a gin and tonic in this glass?

For some reason or other that I forgot, I have a couple of children's party lemonade glasses. They are cylindrical, like Collins glasses, about 16 cm tall and 5.5 cm in diameter. They are clear but have pictures of pink and light blue balloons on them. Could this kind of glass be suitable for mixing a gin and tonic? JIP | Talk 20:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luckfully we not only have several WP articles on your glasses, there are at least a dozen peer reviewed studies. Could you please ask a question we can answer with references? 20:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you have small kids there's a risk they might think that it's a kids drink. As far as mixing, you could stir it, of course, with an iced tea spoon. As for shaking it, that would require covering the top. You might be able to do this with your palm, although I'd expect some leakage, so do it over the sink. Also wash your hands first, obviously, as this isn't very sanitary, and after, as they will be messy. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping the shape and dimensions of the glasses would be enough to be able to speculate whether mixing a gin and tonic in one would be a good idea. After all, what else is there to glasses than their shape and dimensions? If I had just said "I have some children's party lemonade glasses" no one would have been able to answer my question as no one would know what kind of glasses exactly they are. And I don't have any children. That the glasses are intended for children doesn't mean they have to be used by them. I don't even remember where I got them from. JIP | Talk 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tall thin glasses are quite good for stirring, and the small opening will slow the evaporation of the alcohol and other volatile compounds. Wine tasters (and I imagine gin-tasters, as well), have all sorts of "rules" for which shape glass is required for which purpose, but I think that's a mixture of legit reasons (like those I gave) and a lot of silly "tradition", not based on anything. StuRat (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I drink gins and tonic all the time. I am drinking two right now. All that matters is the proportion and the lime wedge. Truly, can you be morse specific as to the actual question for which you want references? μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they aren't morse specific, we can still dash off a quick answer without dotting all of our i's. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

My question is not "is it physically possible to mix a gin and tonic in this glass?" but rather "is it a good idea?". I've only seen pictures of gins and tonic (or gin and tonics?) in highball glasses about cubical in dimensions. I don't have any such glasses. What I want to ask is that would it be acceptable by tradition, and would it make any difference in the actual taste. JIP | Talk 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable according to tradition, no. Taste the same, pretty much yes. StuRat (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. We make them in 16 ounce glass tumblers, two shots of gin, four shots of tonic, a lime wedge, and 3-6 pieces of ice. Anyone who says the container shape matters is ~~a weirdo~~ an elitist. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in part. Glass shape does influence the taste of alcoholic drinks, mostly because taste is mainly smell, and different glasses concentrate the evaporation from the drink in different ways. However, anyone who says that there is one, and only one, correct glass for each drink is IMO a snob. Especially in highballs, where you might not be searching for the finer nuances of bouquet most any glass will do (still IMO). The glasses you describe seem to be very much like a highball glass (apart from the balloons), so yes, I think it's a good idea to use them for a gin and tonic. Sjö (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a good idea to shake a G&T, or any other cocktail with a large proportion of carbonated drinks. A G&T doesn't even strictly needs to be stirred: it can be built over ice quite satisfactorily. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spoons? Shaking?? Lime??? Good lord, just put the ice in the glass, add the gin, a slice of lemon (never lime, unless you want people to think you're the kind of idiot who wants to be hip but never shall be), and top up with tonic. The glass should be cylindrical, and the ones JIP describes sound fine. DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be British. Lime is normal in the US, it is not seen as anything special. People do use lemons if they don't have or feel like going out for limes. You can even drink it without the citrus. μηδείς (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to experience an authentic gin tonic as it was first invented by the British in India in the late 19th century. I'm otherwise all set, but I'm all confused here whether to use lemons or limes. Being neither British or American, I have no personal experience of tradition to rely on. JIP | Talk 20:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This recipe for the original Indian gin & tonic specifies equal parts gin and tonic, with a lime slice. You'll also want to make sure the tonic water has quinine. In the US it sold sold with and without, the latter usually called seltzer. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I will use equal parts of gin and tonic, and lime. I only know of one brand of tonic available in Finland, Schweppes Indian Tonic. At least the website of the Carlsberg brewery, which has a licence for Schweppes products in Finland, says the tonic has quinine, or at least quinine flavour. JIP | Talk 20:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Medeis linked to does not say include a slice of anything in what was drunk in India, nor does it say what proportions were used. You might want a chota peg or a burra peg, so adjust the proportions according to how hard a day you've had. I have to say - a classic G&T never, ever has lime. Lime in a G&T is a modern innovation (in my experience no earlier than the very late 1990s), and was introduced by the sort of bars that think throwing the bottles around and taking five minutes to serve you a drink a real barman could do in seconds is cool, and then charge you extra for the inconvenience. Schweppes is the best tonic (but don't use the slimline version, it tastes appalling). Put a decent measure of gin in, add about half of one of those tiny bottles of tonic, taste it, and add more tonic if you want. There would never have been fixed proportions in India of old. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of the article I linked to says "Put some ice in a glass, pour one part gin, add another part tonic water, finish with a slice of lime, and you have a refreshing drink to counter the heat" and lime is mentioned again at the end, as is quinine and India throughout. And frankly you are off your rocker if you think that limes only found their way into the drink in the 1990's; With Kitchener to Khartoum (1898) mentions gin and soda and lime juice and bitters (i.e., cinchona bark, whose main active ingredient is quinine). I am sure I don't have to mention to our British friends that Kitchener wasn't an American barkeeper in a Manhattan speakeasy called the Khartoum. μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the article does not say that that was how it was drunk in the Raj. "Gin and soda and lime juice and bitters" is not a gin and tonic! The taste of bitters and the taste of tonic are utterly different, as any fule kno. And With Kitchener to Khartum (which I have open in front of me as I type) does not mention gin and tonic at all. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to the point of denying the plain meaning of words and blaming the lime in a gin and tonic (i.e., and soda with bitters) on the soft-porn movie Coyote Ugly you've gone beyond the sober into the hysterical, in both sense of that word. I am quite sure JIP has enough information at this point to satisfy himself. μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Coyote Ugly, and have never blamed anything on it (indeed, I'm pretty sure I've never mentioned it before in any conversation either on- or off-line. I haven't denied the plain meaning of any words. DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the argument here. This is getting way beyond my original question now. I'm going to make a gin tonic with gin, tonic, lime and ice, and that's it. JIP | Talk 19:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried this. It tasted pretty much what I expected gin and tonic to taste like. Here is a picture of the finished drink. JIP | Talk 16:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helping in Nepal

How do I contact a humanitarian organization that works in Nepal, in this time after the earthquake? I am a psychologist living in Italy, I speak Portuguese, Italian and English. I am ready to start as a volunteer. --CasaPazza (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, humanitarian organizations with websites would probably have some sort of contact information somewhere on it. This article lists a few of the more reputable ones. Most of Nepal speaks Nepali, though. Are you planning on acting in a capacity other than psychologist? Handing out supplies, some second language teaching (not the highest priority right now), or just helping move rubble and bodies would be possible without knowing the local language, but I'm not sure what else is possible without speaking the local language. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the impulse, but you have to consider the fact that local authorities will be dealing with crowd control, and the truth expressed by too many cooks spoil the pot. After the towers colapsed on 9/11 I had a very strong impulse to walk downtown, but realized by the time I got their I would end up as a hindrance, not a help. You might contact the International Committee of the Red Cross or another better charity if others here can recommend one. μηδείς (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal is a different situation, though. They have a largely disfunctional government and many working age men work outside the nation, leaving them short on labor to do repairs. They could use some temporary workers, working for a reputable aide organization, to help out. However, if they just join now, the training period may mean they will no longer be needed in Nepal once they are ready to go, but there will always be other places that need help. (My brother is an electrician, and goes to various disaster areas to help restore electricity, such as New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.) StuRat (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal has an unemployment rate of >40% (that's the reason persons go abroad to find work), so I really doubt they are short of labor although there may be a short-term need for specialized skills, such as doctors, engineers, heavy-machinery operators, persons specifically trained in search and rescue operations etc. The usual informed advice though is to stay home and send money (not goods!). Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 40% must include Nepalese who are abroad looking for work. The NPR program I listened to, where they talked with an aid organizer, said that a shortage of particularly young, male workers in Nepal would be a problem. You might think those working abroad could simply go home, but many can't, because of contracts, lack of ability to pay for travel home, or because those at home need their remittances to survive. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link please? Abecedare (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping on to the same question, two Nepali co-workers at my workplace have started a donation pool to help the earthquake victims. I figure once the pool has been completed, they will send the money to humanitarian organisations helping the victims. The earthquake wasn't my fault, there's nothing I could have done to stop it, it wasn't even the work of humans in the first place, and I only first heard of it on Wikipedia. But still it's such a large disaster that I'm considering donating about 5 to 10 €. Hopefully that should be enough for my part. JIP | Talk 21:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medecins sans Frontieres may be the organisation for you. Check them out, at least. Save the Children and Oxfam are other large charities (international, although UK-based) that could give you some signposts as to where to apply. Don't go straight out there in case your presence is counterproductive. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]