Can someone point me to where I might find out the first man to win a women’s sports title? I am working on a school report and would like to find something inspirational. Thanks! Kevinscottwalker (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is obviously "none", because men do not compete in women's sport. I'm going to assume good faith that your question is not somehow related to the issue of transgender people in sports. --Viennese Waltz 05:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it's obvious that any number of transmen are likely to have won sports titles at their schools before coming out or transitioning. If this is not what you meant, please clarify that you are only wanting examples of titles meeting some specified criteria of notability, or that you are only interested in cisgender males.-Gadfium (talk) 05:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure that the answer is Erik Schinegger in 1966. Of course, this is a very special case and not quite the concern of the question. --KnightMove (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can perhaps be inspirational for a school report. This may be the first documented case; it will be difficult to prove definitively that it is the actual first case among the several thousand women’s sports titles awarded up to 1966.  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Ratjen won the women's high jump at the 1936 Summer Olympics. at the 1937 German Track and Field Championship and the 1938 European Women's Championships, setting a "world record" in the latter.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m referring to whoever might be considered the first man to pave the way for other men to compete and win in women’s sports. Kevinscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the first heavyweight to win a medal in bantamweight boxing and pave the way for other heavyweight boxers to compete in that weight class? I'm not sure perhaps, but I have an inkling that these ways haven't been paved, so it is too early for an inspirational story.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:33, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt that non-transgender men have been allowed to compete in women's sports due to the great physiological differences between the sexes. Serena Williams, possibly the greatest woman tennis player of all time, was handily defeated (6-1) by 203rd ranked Karsten Braasch. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only realistic possibility I can come up with is in a sport in which only women compete and where strength is not a major factor: rhythmic gymnastics. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the era (pre-1980s or so) when there were still men's chess tournaments, Susan Polgar was by far the world's strongest woman player. She couldn't find challenging competition in women's tournaments and she was refused entry to men's tournaments. After much conflict, the authorities relented, Susan was allowed to play in men's tournaments, and surprise, she won a number of them. They got rid of men's tournaments around then, I think as a result. They are open to everyone now, though in practice still very heavily male-skewed. As of a few years ago (not sure about now), the head coach of the Hungarian men's national chess team was Susan's sister Judit Polgar. Times have changed. ~2025-40343-80 (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I love this animal. I don't know what it is.

If I had an image of it I could directly post here, it would probably be in Wikimedia Commons or something and it would have a description that identifies the animal in question, but obviously I don't have that yet. I can link to an image of the animal, though. https://postimg.cc/QVk75Nbs MEN KISSING (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Northern tamandua. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, thank you for pointing me in the direction of anteaters! But it looks like more of a Southern tamandua based on what I could find on Wikimedia Commons. Thank you, though!

MEN KISSING (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you can move the knuckle furthest from your hand backwards for all fingers except the ring fingers? ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. Maybe it's just you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm the same. This is the distal interphalangeal joint of the 4th digit (3rd/ring finger), but I can't find any reference to this particular slight limitation of forced motion (in at least some of us), as opposed to this digit's reduced independence and strength of voluntary motion, which is understood (though not well explained in Wikipedia as far as I can find). I've wondered this too, so I hope someone else can find an explanation, thought I suspect it's trivial. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypermobile joints are common and occur in about 10 to 25% of the population. So it's not "just you" who can bend their fingers backwards. The degree differs from individual to individual; contortionists are unusually high on the hypermobility spectrum (a term I just invented for this response, but I see we have an article on Hypermobility spectrum disorder). Just like hypermobility of a specific joint can be due to an injury, so can limited mobility, so a potential explanation for lack of hypermobility in specific finger joints of an individual whose other fingers can bend somewhat backwards is a prior injury, perhaps so mild that it went unnoticed at the time but just sufficient to reduce its mobility permanently. But it may be relevant that the ring finger and thumb are the ones that are most commonly affected in trigger finger, a problem that has generally no known cause. The cause of ring fingers being more commonly affected (for which I have not seen an explanation) might explain their more likely lack of hypermobility.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:18, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: in my case I can force (using my other hand or a fixed object) the DIPs of my fingers only 10 degrees or less beyond straight, except for both my 3rd ("ring") fingers which do not go beyond straight; I'm fairly sure I have never injured either, and I have no hint of hypermobility anywhere else, so since the OP Panamitsu initiated their query with the same observation, I suspect this is a normal phenomenon and something to do with the normal joint configuration of that finger. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental setup:

Lay one hand with the palm flat on a horizontal surface and lift the fingers (not including the thumb) one by one, keeping all other fingers of that hand flat on the surface. Use the index finger of the other hand for lifting, as far as possible without the procedure becoming painful.

Results:

I find no consistent pattern. Most but not all fingers of the dominant hand seem "stiffer" than the corresponding finger of the other hand; for the index fingers it is clearly the other way around. The largest angle is reached with one of the two ring fingers, while the other one is below average but not by much.

Conclusion:

Not much can be concluded from anecdotal evidence, beyond the conclusion that not much can be concluded from anecdotal evidence.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the whole fingers (at the metacarpophalangeal joints) or specifically the distal interphalangeal joints? (These terms are new to me so I hope I'm using them correctly). ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something I ever expected to do but here is a video showing my version of the experiment. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experiment these where the whole fingers. I cannot bend any of the phalanges backwards except, slightly, the distal ones of the little fingers.  ​‑‑Lambiam 23:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specifically the DIPs (the top-most joint). In your excellent video, Panamitsu, it is evident that those of your other three fingers do bend (upwards) noticeably, but that of your third finger does not. My fingers (on both hands) behave in the same way.

The question from Panamitsu (and now also myself) obviously springs from personal ("anecdotal") observation (as does everyone's initial experience of the world), but we are not seeking someone else's personal guesses based on their individual physiology, but reference to some actual scientific research/analysis regarding this anatomical phenomenon (exhibited by half of the contibutors to this discussion thus far), if there is any. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article, "The Hand As a Concept: Digital Differences and Their Importance", aims at giving a comprehensive overview of the bone and joint architecture, muscles, tendons, and degree of functional independence of the separate fingers, as "each digit is unique", and also treats their freedom of movement individually and in combination. While it mentions the ring finger several times, none of these mentions appears to be of relevance to the present issue.  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and relevant material, Lambiam. Thank you. Although I am not so invested as to pay the fee required to download the full article, I take your word for it that nothing in it directly relates to the current question.

Hmmm. If an anatomy student were stuck for a thesis subject . . . . {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of what I mean This is a classic device. My question: is it only metaphorical, or is it actually done in real life? Does it work? Is the donkey dumb enough to fall for it day after day? Asking for metaphorical reasons, though cats and laser pointers come to my mind. Thanks. ~2025-38367-99 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mules are not dumb.^[2] They would almost immediately realize that the carrot moves as they move. The cartoon seems to show a donkey. Donkeys are no dummies either.^[3]  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have articles on marketing and advertising, Arguably, these are examples of carrots on a stick. These are also billion dollar enterprises. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wanted to know whether the mule or donkey version works in real life. It sounds to me like it doesn't, per Lambiam's post though. Thanks. ~2025-39228-43 (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do in my leisure time? CuriousTopCat (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should watch the comedy show It's 8 o'clock! Everyone Gather Together, featuring the comedians The Drifters—they'll have you laughing in no time. Let's Appear Together on No. 55: Definitive Edition!, with the comedians Konto No. 55, is just as funny and definitely worth checking out. He-who-knows-everything (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I definitely need a few laughs. At least I can keep myself occupied this way. Thanks! CuriousTopCat (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're in for a lot more than a few laughs. He-who-knows-everything (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Learn Esperanto; but then what about the next week? —Antonissimo (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is not the first to pose such a question. Daisy in The Great Gatsby (1925) asked: "What'll we do with ourselves this afternoon, and the day after that, and the next thirty years?" We remember her even after 100 years. One can achieve immortality by simply asking a question, even if one does not exist. Living people are even better placed. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In books, or work, or healthful play,

Let my first years be passed,

That I may give for every day

Some good account at last.

Failing that, cultivate your garden. DuncanHill (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'm trying to trace an object held by the Israel Antiquities Authority for an article on Horvat Rimmon. There are several different researchers and excavations of the site that took place, most notably from 1976, 1978–1981, and in 1984. The object likely traces to one of those dates, but looking through the literature has turned up nothing other than an IAA ID number: 138528. There's an even larger number shown on an uncropped photo of the object that I found,[4] but I am assuming that the symbol that appears in the ID is a Greek lamda, but I'm not sure: 858 | 559-λ 138528. There should be a way to match 138528 in the IAA database, but I haven't had much luck so far.[5] I'm wondering if the additional numbers (858 | 559-λ) might shed some light. Typically, I'm used to finding objects like this in a database, for example something like Arachne. It's been a while since I edited in this area, but back when I did, I'm almost certain I ran across a potsherd database of some kind, but it's been ten years since I even visited those sites. Some help would be appreciated. We are hoping that the object is traced to 1976 so we can use a free image of it in the beginning of the year. Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your lambda is the digit 1; see Regional handwriting variation § The numeral 1.

In Google image searches for "חורבת רימון" or "מיער להב" only the same ynet article turns up.

Perhaps you can reach the author through the Coffeebar Express, of which he is, at least according to the Hebrew Wikipedia, the owner.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:09, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipediocracy a far-right website? I lurked that site for a bit. Ahri Boy (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it is described in reliable sources, and we don't answer requests for opinions. Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the topics they've covered, I don't see anything that looks "far right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few right-wing posters there, but right-wingery is certainly not the dominant political position. Right-wing "alternatives to Wikipedia", such as Justapedia, are frequently mocked, and so are Trump and Musk and other such figures. Political comments are mainly tangential in discussions of Wikipedia-related topics. Deor (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Far right?' No. Take it from a Wikipediocracy regular that it most definitely isn't. Opinions are diverse, and if anything probably trends to the left, though clearly that depends what you measure it against. And yes, we mock things. And people. But no, it doesn't have a 'political position'. It's a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... I just joined the forums. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a vast variety of opinions there; I wouldn't say they lean either left or right. ^EF⁵ 15:16, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WPO, in the main, is decidedly left-of-center. If that looks "far right" to someone, they need a new compass. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, I had to get a new socialism-driven compass. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahri Boy, "left-of-center" does not equal socialism. It includes (from right to left) the U.S. Democratic Party (right-wing by European standards), Social Democracy (modified capitalism), socialism (no capitalism), and finally out on the very far-left you'll arrive at communism (not many of them left), but normally it just means slightly more left than right of center. If you want to speak of socialism, then it's far-left, to the left of Social Democracy and the right of communism. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just out of curiosity: was the ballot for Pennsylvania's presidential electors in the 1960 election more similar to the more “vintage” one from 1936 or the more “modern” one from 1972? Thank you very much.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/204956987800

https://www.ebay.com/itm/305526087051

~2025-34907-86 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can only be answered if someone finds an actual 1960 ballot or an image thereof. There are no rules concerning the design of these ballots, not for the text and also not for the layout. It is conceivable that it resembled neither of the two.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna know more about this event in 1969 where millions of birds invaded this small town of Scotland Neck, North Carolina. I’ve got like 2 sources, mainly because finding old newspapers is hard and locked behind paywalls. [6] [7] Redbreadwater (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, interesting! I found one more (more recent) source [8], and on the wikipedia library a paragraph in a 1972 TIME article about a similar infestation in Virginia [9]. A more skillful search there might turn up more. Also a passing mention in this article about a rather fascinating institution I'd never heard of before [10]. TIL. -- Avocado (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, thank you! Redbreadwater (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also this 2016 article.

And this 1971 article in Life magazine.

And this bizarre 2013 film on YouTube.

Plus a mention in this acedemic article (you can open a free JSTOR account if you don't have other access).

Alansplodge (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first item in Strange, Sudden and Unexpected (Cornell 1972), "True Stories from the files of the Smithsonian Institution's Centre for Short-Lived Phenomena". Not surprising, therefore, to find it in the 1971 Annual Report of that Centre. Also mentioned in Earth Watch: Notes on a Restless Planet (Shepherd 1973) and The Book of Beasts (May 1983). The first two three are obviously linked, I don't know how independent the other two are one is.[Edited] -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone answer the latest topic on Talk:Soweto uprising? ~2025-41525-48 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for a prediction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Shepherd's Bush murders notes that Harry Roberts was found by police "whilst sleeping rough in a disused airfield hangar on Blount's Farm, Sawbridgeworth near Bishop's Stortford." How did the police finally track him down there, Roberts having evaded capture for 96 days? --Viennese Waltz 13:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Google's AI Overview replied to an enquiry. It may of course not be accurate, because AI, but it might help in searching for Reliable sources.

"Initial Discovery: In October 1966, a farmhand walking his dogs in Thorley Woods (near Bishop’s Stortford) discovered a camouflaged tent with a light inside and heard the rattling of tins. Although Roberts fled before armed police could raid the tent, the discovery confirmed he was hiding in that specific area.

Intensive Search: Following this lead, police combed the surrounding countryside. As winter weather set in, Roberts moved from his tent into more permanent structures.

Final Apprehension: Police eventually searched Blount’s Farm in Sawbridgeworth. An officer noticed a Primus stove and a bottle of methylated spirits in a disused aircraft hangar. Upon overturning two bales of straw, they found Roberts cowering in a sleeping bag."

Hope this helps {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} ~2025-31359-08 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's great, thanks. Hope AI doesn't do us RD regulars out of a job, though. --Viennese Waltz 07:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]