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.
Latest comment: 8 December 20254 comments4 people in discussion
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.[1] They would almost immediately realize that the carrot moves as they move. The cartoon seems to show a donkey. Donkeys are no dummies either.[2] ‑‑Lambiam14:50, 7 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
Latest comment: 11 December 20253 comments2 people in discussion
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,[3] 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.[4] 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
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
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
Latest comment: 13 December 20252 comments2 people in discussion
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.
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. ‑‑Lambiam11:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 December 20255 comments4 people in discussion
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.
[5][6]Redbreadwater (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ooooh, interesting! I found one more (more recent) source [7], and on the wikipedia library a paragraph in a 1972 TIME article about a similar infestation in Virginia [8]. 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 [9]. TIL. -- Avocado (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 December 20253 comments2 people in discussion
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 Waltz13:31, 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."
![[3]](https://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02022009/2185708/3_wa.jpg){kind=link}