The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
There are sources for Blumenbach's five-race classification, one of which was the "Ethiopean race". William Henry Flower supported a three-race classification, likewise including an "Ethiopean race". The topic Menschenracen in the ur-edition of Meyers Konversations-Lexikon presented a four-race classification.[2] All were very much 19th-century theories. None used the term Ethiopid, nor is it clear that the latter term, in theories that use it, means the same as Negroid. ‑‑Lambiam01:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of 31 December 2019, Shell had total proved reserves of 11.1 billion barrels (1.76×109 m3) of oil equivalent.
What's a good jurisdiction-independent word for the right to control oil reserves? This sentence's use of "had" is sufficiently vague, but because it's close to "proved", it looks like a misplaced auxiliary verb, and I'd like to change it. But perhaps "owned" is incorrect (can it own reserves if one merely owns the right to extract them from someone else's land?) and perhaps "controlled" is insufficient (perhaps the landowner "controls" oil rights even after selling the rights to Shell?), so I'm not clear on the right terminology. Nyttend (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The collocation "had proved reserves" is not uncommon: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. You can avoid it by using, "Shell's proved resources amounted to 11.1 billion barrels". (The use of "total" is IMO redundant.) ‑‑Lambiam23:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today I noticed an icon in page histories that looks like a chess pawn and links to info about the username just to the right of it. Is that something new, or has it always been there and I failed to see it until today? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Culture and cuisine also varies considerably across the contiguous United States, so the main differences are to be expected in what is unique to Alaska. Indigenous culture is more influential in Alaska than in the other continental states. There are (depending on how you count) 22 indigenous languages, 18 of which are official languages of Alaska. There are many indigenous dishes not found in other states; other than these, the cuisine can largely be described as Pacific Northwest cuisine, not unique to Alaska but different from the cuisines of most states. The Iditarod is extremely popular; I can't readily think of a similarly popular state-bound event in any other state. There is probably much more; I've never been to Alaska and don't know any Alaskans personally. Oh, and Alaskans may think they are more rugged than people from other states, but such state-centric chauvinism is not unique to Alaska. ‑‑Lambiam15:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about "main difference", but when I think of Alaska, the first things that pop to mind are:
Unlike most other states, Alaska is not subdivided into counties, but rather boroughs. (But it is not quite unique in this regard, as Louisiana is divided into non-county parishes.)
Historically, the finest-scale USGStopographic maps for most of Alaska were 1:63,360 scale, unlike the 1:24,000 and 1:25,000 maps for the other 49 states. (But it looks like, since 2018, they're making 1:25,000 maps for Alaska, also.)
County vs borough vs parish is really just a difference in terminology. Alaska's boroughs and Louisiana's parishes are included in lists alongside the counties of other states because they serve the same purposes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say that Alaska is unique in that the (organized) county-equivalents do not cover the whole state; but then I remembered reading that the counties of Connecticut are now mere statistical units, with no administrative function, so they are comparable to the Unorganized Borough. —Antonissimo (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're different. As copyright states, it covers only specific creative works. Culture that gets appropriated hijacked is a broader, more nebulous subject. It can, I suppose, include creative works (if books like Shakespeare and Cultural Appropriation can be taken seriously), but includes many things that can't be copyrighted. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriation is making that which belongs to someone else your own. Depending on who, how and what, this may be legal or it may be unlawful. And even when it is perfectly legal, it may be wrong (in someone's point of view).
Copyright infringements are, by definition, unlawful. Copyright is protected by law. The expressions of a group of people that are part of their shared cultural identity – use of language, dress, hairstyle, songs, and so on – are generally not copyrightable and not protected by law. Infringing such expressions without respect for their significance may be wrong, but is nevertheless legally permitted.
A specific example may be helpful. Rastas have dreadlocks. To them, this has a religious spiritual significance, connecting them to the universe and Earth. When this is copied just because it makes the wearer look like they are a cool dude, they experience this as a disrespectful appropriation of an important aspect of their culture. But what can they do about it? They have no copyright or any other claim to an exclusive right on dreadlocks. ‑‑Lambiam13:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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. ‑‑Lambiam21:26, 5 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. ‑‑Lambiam19:33, 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]
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/QVk75NbsMEN KISSING (talk) 23:37, 5 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!
Southern Tamandua - Sunshine International Aquarium, Tokyo, Japan
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. ‑‑Lambiam11:18, 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.
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]
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. ‑‑Lambiam23:49, 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. ‑‑Lambiam14:40, 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.
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.[9] They would almost immediately realize that the carrot moves as they move. The cartoon seems to show a donkey. Donkeys are no dummies either.[10] ‑‑Lambiam14:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
