Entertainment desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 26

First male to win a women’s sports title?

Hi, I was hoping someone could point me to where I might find the first male to win a women’s sports title? It can be any sport, it doesn’t matter, it’s just that I’m doing a school report and I want to find something inspirational. Degurumcqueen (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Degurumcqueen I assume you mean a Trans woman? If so, I don't appreciate the transphobia. Sandcat555 (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean transgender athletes a good place to start would be our article on Transgender people in sports. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please remove this bigotry? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I hate transphobia Sandcat555 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Ratjen won the women's high jump at the 1937 German Athletics Championships and the 1938 European Athletics Championships (as well as finishing 4th at the 1936 Summer Olympics). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratjen is/was intersex. Sandcat555 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says male or intersex. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're sure you mean any sport, there was WWF Women's Champion Harvey Wippleman (dba "Hervina"). It wasn't inspirational, wasn't fair and wasn't pretty. But it happened. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the earliest circle of 5ths in Western Europe

My question needs a little bit of an introduction (apologies for that) but it finally arrives... Be patient.

The first time the circle of 5ths appears in Western Europe (it had already made its appearance in Russia some decades before) was in the theoretical works of Johann David Heinichen as a circle of major and minor keys. But there is something odd in the way Heinichen presents the circle of 5ths: he gives the major and minor keys interlaced (so his circle, which he doesn't call "circle of 5ths" but "musical circle", is in effect two circles of 5ths interlaced) and, most bizarrely, Heinichen puts the relative minor key *after* its relative major (in the direction of the sharps): ... F > d > C > a > G > e > ... If you want to interlace major and minor keys (or major and minor perfect chords which amounts to the same thing), a practice that was shortly thereafter abandoned, then logic would dictate that you put the relative minor *before* its relative major (in the direction of the sharps): ... d > F > a > C > e > G ... so that a lower root appears before a higher root. Also in this way every root is a 3rd apart and two adjacent chords in the "musical circle" always have two common tones, the 3rd and 5th of the 1st chord (the root and 3rd of the 2nd chord).

Now (finally) my question: Can anyone see *any* rationale to Heinichen's arrangement that I couldn't see?

178.51.16.158 (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I couldn't think of a reason. It always appeared to me that in teaching the theory of Western harmony, an approach based on a progression of alternating major and minor thirds would be easier to understand and also more convenient to learn from, thus:

        A♭      E♭      B♭      F       C       G       D       A          
     /-----\ /-----\ /-----\ /-----\ /-----\ /-----\ /-----\ /-----\       
    A♭  C   E♭  G   B♭  D   F   A   C   E   G   B   D   F♯  A   C♯  E   G♯ 
         \-----/ \-----/ \-----/ \-----/ \-----/ \-----/ \-----/ \-----/   
            c       g       d       a       e       b       f♯      c♯

The top line names major triads, the bottom line names minor triads, and the middle line gives the names of the individual notes of which the triads are comprised. In this chart, where the direction of the sharps is from left to right, a is between F and C, and not between C and G as in Heinichen's circle. --Lambiam 22:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is without doubt the only sane arrangement in my opinion. In fact schemes like the Tonnetz are arranged according to this very principle because, well, there is no alternative. Incidentally if you take the Tonnetz and construct a dual "Akkordnetz" by making every face (triangle) of the Tonnetz a vertex you get an extended version of what you have drawn above. But to get back to trying to understand Heinichen's reasoning, is it true that some theorists in the 17th c. and/or 18 c. took the diatonic scale of D (white keys from D to D, or in other words the "dorian" scale) as the prototype of the minor mode (instead of the scale of A, so called "aeolian", which is what is done nowadays)? I seem to remember statements to that effect, maybe when discussing incomplete key signatures used for the minor mode at that time. If that is indeed the case (and I'm not certain it is) could it be that Heinichen's "musical circle" which is a circle of keys would have d minor before C major, a minor before G major, etc. simply because to him the relative minor of C major is actually d dorian, and so on? 178.51.16.158 (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]