Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 January 2

= January 2 =

Species/breed of dog vs. the concept of human race and ethnicity
Some time ago, I asked whether President Obama’s children would qualify as either biracial or black. Some time ago, I asked about my 3/4 Latino heritage. From both questions, I received answers such as it is up to people to decide for themselves who they want to identify themselves as or that the concept of race is an invention of humans. I learned the other day that my neighbor's dog is 3/4 Poodle & 1/4 Labrador, which means that it is a mutt, but he considers it to be a Poodle. When my neighbor told me that his dog is 3/4 Poodle & 1/4 Labrador, it raised some interesting questions in my mind considering all the “what race am I” questions I’ve seen and considering those 2 questions I asked and the answers I got. After all, we humans are animals like dogs are, so we have many similarities between them. So, applying the same human logic to his dog, would his dog be considered to be indeed a Poodle given that it is 3/4 Poodle or can it be considered a hybrid (the animal equivalent of a biracial or multiethnic), or a labradoodle in other words? Is the answer more scientific for animal species and breeds than it is human races and ethnicities? In other words, is the answer to my question based on the mathematics, or the biological ratio in other words? If not, is it up to the owner to decide what species or breed the dog is since dogs obviously can’t decide what they are? Or is it up to how the dog looks like to humans? Willminator (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What the F... difference what race if any you have? Why do you care? Dmcq (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong response, Dmcq. It's not up to us to question our OPs' motives for asking their questions.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Each breed of dog will have an associated breeding club that defines what is and is not a member of that breed. It is not scientific or mathematical - it is simply definition (that said, there is a scientific definition of breed). None of this has any real similarity to human races or ethnicities, which are not valid phylogenetic groups, and thus could not be considered subspecies or breeds in the scientific sense. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dogs like that are very carefully controlled by the breeders and often kept in cages. I'm not certain how many humans can claim such good control over the sexual behaviour of their ancestors, but seemingly what would be called mongrels in dog terms are quite frequent. Iwouldsuggest taking a genetic test and then checking up what percentage of the genes are Latino. Dmcq (talk) 09:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There are more specific articles at Dog breed and Origin of the domestic dog. As  Someguy1221 says, there are considerable differences between the way humans have evolved, and the way different breeds of dog have been developed.  The two are not directly comparable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dmcq's proposed plan of action won't work, because there is no such thing as a Latino gene. That's because Latino is a cultural category, not a biological one.  According to the US Census Bureau, Latinos may belong to any "race," though as has been pointed out here before, races are also culturally defined.  (The difference is that people imagine that races are biological.)  Latinos' ancestors include people from several parts of Africa, from Europe (mainly the Iberian peninsula), people of indigenous Amerindian (Native American) origin, and even people from Asia. Typical genetic profiles of Latinos vary considerably from one part of Latin America to another.  Latinos of Mexican origin are likely to be a mix of Amerindian and Iberian European ancestry, while those from the Caribbean islands are likely to be predominantly of African origin but also with some Iberian European and possibly Asian or Amerindian ancestry. Note that none of the different ethnic groups that came together in Latin America was genetically uniform; all of them shared genes with people of other ethnic and (culturally constructed) racial groups.
 * Ultimately, Willminator is asking for an authoritative and scientific answer to questions like "Who am I?" and "What is my identity?" These are really questions that no one but Willminator can answer.  Human beings do not belong to groups with clear-cut objective natural boundaries.  The only boundaries are political and cultural ones. The political boundaries are regulated by states, but in most parts of the world, the cultural ones are not.  People may see others as belonging to certain groups, but people may be mistaken.  For example, a friend's daughter has an African American father and a German mother. This young woman is often perceived as Latino and even spoken to in Spanish on the street, even though she doesn't speak a word of Spanish, and none of her ancestors, to her knowledge, ever lived in Latin America.  It is really up to this young woman and Willminator to decide how they want to identify. It would be perfectly reasonable for either of them to reject racial classification and insist on being accepted as an individual and a human being who does not wish to be classified.  Marco polo (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dog breeds have been deliberately created and maintained by humans by careful selective breeding (and pedigree dogs sometimes end up with health problems due to inbreeding). Dogs, left to their own devices, will quite happily breed with other dogs irrespective of breed, leading to a species with a continuum of characteristics, not a clearly delineated set of separate breeds. Just like people. The "races" aren't separate things with clear boundaries, they shade into each other.
 * The other thing to remember is that you have unimaginable numbers of ancestors. You might have such-and-such a percentage of Latino ancestry based on your grandparents, but if you trace your ancestors further back you might find the percentages are very different. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Did this actually happen (at a bestiality trial)?
Supposedly, a guy was on trial, having been caught having sex with a farm animal (say a goat for the sake of argument) - something which he held his hands up to and pleaded guilty to, but in doing so he stood up and made a statement to the court, wanting it to be made a matter of public record that while yes, he'd indeed been caught having sex with a goat - that he wanted to make it absolutely clear, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the goat was *female*.

So, is this an urban legend, or did this really happen somewhere? I've heard a few people tell this same story over the years.

Thinking about it though, it does sound like a piece of humour, but I don't suppose that it's beyond the realms of possibility in some parts of the world that the difference in being convicted of bestiality with a female animal than with a male animal is the difference between doing jail time and being hanged.

Any ideas? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.155.77 (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are so many reported cases of bestiality I would be surprised if this wasn't true. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There are laws covering this in most jurisdictions, but hypothetical discussions about the aggravating circumstances would seem to run afoul of our intention to avoid giving legal opinions. As to whether this is an urban legend, the best reference I can recommend is snopes. 71.246.151.82 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We have an article on zoophilia and the law. It is rather cursory only, but it does not mention any jurisdiction where a difference is made between engaging in intercourse with a same-sex or opposite-sex animal. In many US states (see Zoophilia and the law in the United States) intercourse with an animal is not strictly illegal, but sexually penetrating an animal may be considered animal abuse, so you could see a gender-based defense in that case (e.g. claiming that being penetrated by an animal is not a crime). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Sudanese goat marriage incident.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure whether the event the OP describes did actually happen; it sounds like a joke to me. However, it may have something to do with the fact (sometimes mentioned in late night stand-up comedy shows) that until quite recently it was legal to have sex with an animal in more US states that it was to marry someone of the same sex.  According to File:Legality of Zoophilia in the United States.svg, zoophilia is legal in 14 states and has been that way for a long time; while it is only since mid-2013 that more states perform same-sex marriage.  Astronaut (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Late night comics aside... sex and marriage are not the same thing. If we are going to compare laws, let's at least compare laws that relate to the same thing... so laws about sexual acts between humans and animals (zoophilia laws) should be compared to with laws about sexual acts between humans and other humans (such as sodomy laws)... while laws about legal/religious unions between humans and other humans (marriage) should be compared to laws about legal/religious unions between humans and animals.
 * Sexual act laws: At the moment, sodomy is legal in all 50 States, while zoophilia is (apparently) legal in 14.
 * Marriage laws: a) opposite-sex human to human marriage - legal in all 50 States... opposite-sex human to animal marriage - not legal in any state. b) same-sex human to human marriage - legal in 18 states (with more at least considering it)... same-sex human to animal marriage - not legal in any state. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The formulation with his insistence on public record that the goat was female sounds like a joke where his concern is not about legality or sentencing but about his reputation. He can accept the public knows he had sex with a goat but don't want them to think he might be homosexual. It may be an implied part of the joke that sodomy can both (among other things) mean sex with an animal and anal sex. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Some random things I found: For the Hill Street Blues episode Ewe and Me, Babe, there was a dispute over two lines of dialogue that made it clear a sheep, living with a man, was a female. "Smoltz and other courageous crusaders against bestiality have apparently overlooked. Pixel, you see, is a female pony." "Mr. Fournier wrote that Lebanese law allowed men to practice bestiality if they used female animals." "Thailand – No laws on bestiality but you can be fined for “subduing a female dog”." Also see historical animal trials. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * One has to, in this context, mention this cartoon (moderately NSFW).  We don't have an article on Pete Broelman?  Hmm.  Something might need to be done about it. Tevildo (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Religions or denominations that encourage separation from the world
I'm aware that I asked a question on the Jehovah's Witnesses just yesterday, but this is different in that it is a general question on religion rather than of a particular denomination. Anyway, one of the most famous practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses is that they wish to remain separate from the rest of the world (they don't run for public office, rarely vote, and limit interaction with non-Witnesses; I have an anecdote on this, my aunt, who is a Witness, used to not come to my extended family's yearly reunion because it was then called a Christmas party rather than a family reunion). According to the aforementioned article, they even reject joining interfaith meetings and the like. Now my question is: are there other religions and denominations, Christian or not, which practices similar behavior? Are there other religions which shares some of the practices of the Witness, such as not participating in interfaith activities, minimizing contact with people of different religions, encouraging political neutrality, etc.? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Amish typically live off-the-grid and by their own rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And so do the Mormons. In their case, 'living by their own rules' also includes intermarrying, and even with their own children.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  12:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That last sentence needs clarification. I think some polygamous offshoots of Mormonism allow marriage of a man with his step-daughter.  AFAIK, no branch permits marriage with one's biological children. StuRat (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Narutolovehinata5, part of the issue for your aunt may be that it was a Christmas party; remember that the Witnesses don't celebrate events such as birthdays or secular/mainstream Christian holidays. Perhaps your aunt now comes to the reunions because they're simply reunions.  Meanwhile, it depends what you mean by "political neutrality"; are you looking for groups that share in the refusal to do pretty much everything with the state (e.g. the no-Pledge-of-Allegiance), or simply groups that don't vote, or something else?  A big thing with non-interfaith groups is their difference from others: if you see others as radically different from you, e.g. as heretics, and/or if others see you that way, you're likely to have fewer interactions with them.  Given that the Witnesses' Christology is radically different, their separation from other churches isn't simply a matter of refusing to associate with the others.  Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Exclusive Brethren might fit the bill. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Stauffer_Mennonite are similar to the Amish. DanielDemaret (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Old_Order_Mennonite also. DanielDemaret (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * An enormous number of monastic communities (not all) from a wide range of religious traditions. The links there will take you to a number of groups that fit your definition. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Sufi tradition of Islam comes to mind, also Buddhist monks. We also had an article explaining the negative connotation of "world" that is now merged in with world. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given my experience in the Strict and Particular Baptists I'd say they fit the bill. Also the Scottish sect known as the "Wee Frees". --TammyMoet (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Wee Frees and indeed the Wee Wee Frees don't withdraw from or remain aloof from the world. They just have a relatively strict code of austere Presbyterian behaviour, including strict Puritan Sabbatarianism. The former Lord Chancellor Lord Mackay of Clashfern was a Wee Wee Free and there was no incompatability between him acting as a lawyer, judge, and politician, and his religious beliefs (as long as he avoided working on a Sunday). (Although famously, when he attended a Catholic funeral mass for a colleague that brought him into dispute with his church). Valiantis (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they do practise strict Puritan Sabbatarianism, they do withdraw from the world, even if it is just for one day a week. There wasn't a time limit specified. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to me to be a clear distinction between keeping one day separate for religious observance, but otherwise engaging in politics and worldly affairs, and choosing to routinely stand aside from worldly affairs. The OP's example was the Jehovah's Witnesses and the article Jehovah's Witnesses and governments makes it clear how they differ fundamentally from Puritan Sabbatarians as to how they should relate to secular authorities. Valiantis (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

sing a song of sixpence
I remember half of an alternate fifth stanza to the nursery rhyme "sing a song of sixpence" which is not listed anywhere in the Wikipedia article covering this song. In my memory, a women's voice is singing the song and I have a picture of a cartoon character hanging out the clothes on a clothesline as she sings, "You naughty, naughty blackbird, I need my little nose; to sniff the lovely soap suds as I wash the clothes, ..........and bring it back to me,......... along came the blackbird and pecked it on again. Anyone know the rest of the song that I am missing?  Where I saw it?  I am 60 years old and have known this song since I was little.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.117.128.137 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I found this page. See near the bottom of the page It says "You naughty, naughty bird, I need my little nose to smell all the soapsuds when I was the clothes. I’ll get a sugar cookie and hang it on the tree if you will find my little nose and bring it back to me". As for "when I was ", I think it's a typo. Oda Mari (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to, the version on the BBC in the 1950s included the lines
 * "There was such a commotion that little Jenny Wren/Flew down from the tree tops and popped it on again"
 * The phrase "pecked it on again" certainly sounds familiar to me, and I suspect "pecked" was sometimes substituted for "popped".- gadfium 19:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Opies' Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes (1951) has—among other notes about variations and expansions of the rhyme—a note about the addition of a final couplet "But there came a Jenny Wren / And popped it on again" (of which the BBC version is obviously an expansion) in a Randolph Caldecott edition of 1880. There's no mention, however, of the OP's addition; it must be something more modern (or perhaps American and thus something that escaped the Opies' notice). Deor (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Jenny Wren or the blackbird or whatever "pegged" it on again. That is what I have always thought. Hmm, see Mondegreen Richard Avery (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)