Talk:Human height

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human height article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Sources

Readers can not confirm each data. We should put exact citation or source in each average heights, shouldn't we? I mean not only putting the source name but also the links of data, page of the book, etc (We have Google books). And if the country don't have the data in ft or cm, we should leave the cell a blank, no need to calculate in other unit. I found some miscalculations (cm and ft doesn't match now).--221.191.22.252 (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Height needs serious reworking

It is common knowledge that humans, or at least Western humans today are far taller than they were even a few centuries ago. Yet from reading this article you would have no idea that this was the case. The increase in height over the last several thousand years is dramatic and has undoubtedly been scientifically examined. This article is of little worth, except for determining average height of national populations, without some scientific insight on why human beings have become so much taller(and larger overall) in such a short period of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.73.188 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, we can write about that, but the truth is more complicated than simply a linear increase in height over time ... height has been going up and down since before recorded history. In fact, Europeans are still nowhere near the average height they used to be around 20,000 years ago, when Cro-Magnon people lived, and seemed to average about 6'4" for their males. That was the high point, so to speak, of European history. Probably we will never get back there because we just dont have the tallness genes we used to have. The low point seems to have occurred at various times in various places ... interestingly it seems that the richer a pre-modern European society was, the more stunted its people would be. Rome's people were at their shortest when the Empire was its zenith, and during the early days of the Industrial Revolution British men averaged about 5'3". I would say that we can't speak of a universal increase in height in Europe until after World War II, and for the rest of the world, in some especially poor countries they still have a long way to grow. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 09:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea, agreed. The cm and ft of each county doesn't match. And the title says "Average". But of When? I think we should talk a policy (what year we should take and how many are allowed to each countries, etc) first then add the data. --221.191.22.252 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Measured Heights Removed

Who in their right mind would remove the measured Canadian heights and leave the self-reported heights? That's the exact opposite of what we're trying to do. We're trying to phase out the outdated heights, as well as those self-reported heights which are highly unreliable as it is quite well documented people lie by at least an inch or two, which wreaks havoc on obtaining accurate data. Add the measured heights back. Just because you don't like how they turned out doesn't mean they are incorrect. The source is definitely more reliable than the self-reported heights. --Criticalthinker 07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the reason here is that we have some Canadian Supremacists on this page. In recent times Canadians have grown to be as tall as American whites and blacks, as have Australians. But just like Australians this is only recently, and older generations of Americans are taller than Canadians. (if you look at the Australian height source you'll see a remarkable parity with Canadian height). I left the Australian self reported height on the page for the purposes of comparison so users could see canadians were really about 5'10" on average.
The average height of Canadians and Australians for each generation is actually very similar, but Americans are taller for all but the young people. I think some Canadians like to think their health care has made them taller than Americans, rather than the truth that they have only recently caught up for only the younger generations.
However, on this page we generally try and keep the age groups young, so ideally we'd find a measured report on the height of canadian youth (here's spoiler it's around 5'10").
Canadian health authorities have another trick that makes them look better, using self reported heights and weights to gather obesity data. That way the positive thinking gets compounded to reduce obesity rates. ---r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2007 (UTC).

I am a Canadian 18 year old who is 6'4 and can verify that the average height of Canadian males my age would be around 5'10. Of course most guys my age who are 5'10 would report themselves as 6 feet, so you see where the issue arises. On the other hand, Americans of the same age are certainly not any taller, and would appear to be less tall if anything than the current Canadian generation. Can we get some sources on the height averages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.73.188 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese an accurate source?

Why is the Chinese source removed because it is a foreign language when other foreign language sources are not removed? Unfreeride 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The chinese source was removed because it lacked verifiability.
There are two aspects of that -
1. The source is not of a scholarly quality and provides little information about methods and sample, add to that that this source is in disagreement with other sources.
2. The source is in Chinese, and there are English sources available.
Other links are kept in most likely because they are more verifiable, if not then some should be deleted but not out motives such as sour grapes or revenge. ---r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
That just doesn't cut it, whoever you are. There are plenty of sources not in the English language, and plenty of sources that aren't from official health and statistics bureaus, on here. We go for what is best until we can find better, and until we can find better sources for China, that height should remain. Leave it alone. --Criticalthinker 09:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article policies, we do have better sources, and have HAD better sources for Chinese height. ---r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=553986 here is a source for Chinese medical students (mostly from Beijing) - average self reported height is 172.3cm for males and 161.3 cm for females. If Chinese are typical in terms of exaggeration they average male height is < 171cm and female height about 160cm, and this is for the medical students between the ages of 19 - 25 (average age 20.4 in 2005). ---r0m {{subst:220.253.68.210|17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)}}
I suggest that you stop acting like a dictator of risk being barred from this article. If you think that will do, then add it. There is no reason why the most populous nation in the world shouldn't have a height category, here, and due to silly technicalities which I'll have to check into. You are not this page's only editor, so stop acting like it, and grow up. And, please do post your signature so that we can respond on your own talk page. --Criticalthinker 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want a talk page, I can't believe the tact you're taking with me - given that you are siding with Unfreeride - have a look at his checkered past ie racism, being banned for POV pushing, lying to admins etc.
I'm not a dictator, but I can enforce Wikipedia standards on verifiability on this - or any other - page. Ofcourse the worlds most populous country should have an entry - but it should be a verifiable one, otherwise anyone should remove it.
You sound a lot like a wannabe dictator to me, threatening me with a ban and for what? Protecting this article from POV pushing, original research and unverifiable data. ---r0m —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
Don't waste your time arguing with r0m. Just ignore him unless you want to be blocked. 71.175.32.77 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You can get blocked for arguing with rOm. How do you know? Were you? And if so what was the reason given for your block? Was it his original research or his POV pushing? Why were you blocked and not him? I don't like being told the average height of Bejingnese is 176cm or the height of Yugoslavians is about 6'3 as both are exaggerations. This is an encyclopedia and human height is of general interest. I doubt any race has achieved its potential height although some scandanavian countries and Japan have leveled off a bit. Stop attacking editors and say you'll look into there contributions later and don't threat blocks. Getting blocked for arguing means you were arguing out of your league and lost your cool when you realised you were outsmarted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
----
"Don't waste your time arguing with r0m. Just ignore him unless you want to be blocked.
71.175.32.77 03:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)"
This is Unfreeride's sock puppet
this message in between these lines is from r0m the above message is not from me.
----
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.253.68.210 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Statistics : variance

The mean height tells us absolutely nothing about the distribution. Assuming height follows a normal distribution, the variance also needs to be listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.235.207 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Want to be taller

now i'm over 20 and my height is 5'4" so i want to more tall than before so how can i do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.161.146 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

GO live in China. 128.226.170.133 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
LMAO true. but still, mythbusters or another program i watched, delt with height difficulties and tried everything going, and nothing works. the only thing to make you about 2-3 inches taller is having your legs extended with metal plates. but its not recommended... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.47.40 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, why not give it a try and ask the reference desk? Loukinho (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A return to the Yugoslavs

This is a brief message to all those who wrote in sectrions 65 and 66 about Yugoslavs being tall and to those who disagreed. Firstly, a nation is one thing and a country's citizens is another. Yugoslavs as a nation, as you'd see here, are a group of people scattered throughout its former region who choose that particular identity. For the majority of the people, we need to state examples such as: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins etc., but more so on regional grounds than self-designation. So, South Slavs rather than Yugoslavs might be more appropriate and less offensive, or better still, regions within, namely Herzegovina which is best known for its tall people. But now I will put the boot in: Serbs on the whole are not tall people, no they are not. Having once lived in Belgrade myself, most of the people as tall as myself all came from somehwere near me - I am from Dubrovnik and most 6'6-ers were from places closer to my region. In Vojvodina, they are mostly small, in Central Serbia they are mostly small - only down in Sandžak to people begin to get taller as the imaginary frontiers are quickly forgotten that you see that in Southern Bosnia and Montenegro, the height increases more and more, and this is the centre of it. Yes there are ethnic Serbs and who I agree, do contribute to this huge height average, because Serbs are not all living in Serbia itself. Bosnian Serbs from the western areas of Bosnia, and pockets of regions once home to Croatian Serbs (mainly Lika, like Tesla), are very tall - no question - but the millions of Serbs from Serbia make up the bulk, and sadly friends - they are not tall on average. Belgrade is cosmopolitan, so are Nis and Novi Sad for their sizes but to a lesser degree. It means that people from far away get to live in these places - so you cannot assume that Mr.Big in Novi Sad really does come from Novi Sad unless you know him personally. The term Dinaric Alps is not political, as it does not conform to a country. In honesty, this makes it good for the topic, but then it is slightly inaccurate. Even the Dinaric regions vary in height and some of them are quite small too - such as Northern Adriatic Croatia and Slovenia, and north-western Bosnian regions caught witihin. Also, Western Serbia in places like Kopaonik - part of those Alps but not home to tall people as such. So, looking at this, we can say that South-Slavs, or Yugoslavs if anyone still insists from certain areas are tall, not all of them - Macedonians, definitely not, and neither are Bulgarians who still qualify as a South Slavic nation. Then there is one more aspect: Albanians - they Dinaric Albanians are not Slavs of any kind but they too are tall, and the Dinaric Alps do cover Northern Albania anyhow. Of course, to state that Albanians are tall might also be ridiculous as central and southern Albanians and even those of Kosovo and Presevo Province are on the small side. So, the information is accurate when it states that 185cm is average for the Dinaric Alps, and applies to both the Slavic peoples and the Albanian groups. Nothing more can be said. Balkantropolis 12:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if in Novi Sad you see one guy that is 2m tall every 3 persons, the theory about the mr Big guy who is originally from the Adriatic does not hold any water.

You go to halkidiki, where in the summer 95% of the tourists are Serbs from Serbia, and you see the same percentage of very tall people. Are they all from Croatia or Montenegro?

Even in mountainous provincial places like southern eastern serbia like Vranje you can find astonishingly tall people, although admittedly they are shorter than the rest of Serbia.

One other thing is the std deviation (or variance for the matter). In Serbia, Bosnia, this number must be huge compared to Western/Northern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Albanians tall? Is this a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.103.35.211 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An observation

I think is important to note that nowadays europeans are quite a mixture of diferent races ("white" races in most of cases) of the same homo sapiens sapiens branch.

This means that we cannot compare with 15.000 years ago homo sapiens sapiens because the first wave that came to europe was not exactly the same people there is today, for the simple reason that there were more newcomers after that.

I think this text (in Spanish) is quite explicit and realistic, off course:

"El Hombre de Cro-Magnon es el nombre con el cual se suele nombrar a ciertos Homo sapiens, en especial los que habitaron en cuevas de Europa en las que se encontraron pinturas rupestres. Se le denomina Hombre de Cro-Magnon, debido a una cueva francesa en la que se halló uno de sus fósiles.

El geólogo Louis Lartet descubrió los primeros cinco esqueletos en marzo de 1868 en la cueva de Cro-Magnon (cerca de Les Eyzies, Dordogne, Francia), lugar del que obtienen su nombre. Aparecieron en la Península Ibérica hace unos 20.000 años.

Su altura media era de 1,85 metros, 25 centímetros superior a la de sus predecesores. Es el primer representante del Homo sapiens u hombre actual, y su aparición da comienzo al Paleolítico superior. Poseía una amplia nariz, mentón prominente y frente ancha."

In my opinion this Cro-Magnon man was only the first one, but there was still resting more different Cro-Magnons man from many other places to arrive at Europe. I am 192cm tall, wich is a lot in comparison with most Spanish people of today but may be not too much with other early people.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.18.185.54 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

The Cro-magnon's were most likely descendents of Nilotic people from East Africa. This is because they had long legs and shorter trunks just like the Maasai. But this type of body is suited to hot regions of Africa. So over time the Cro-magnon's evolved shorter legs and longer trunks. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf. Muntuwandi 00:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Good explanation, i didn't know that. So you mean that this last evolution took place in euro-asia. ¿Don't you, Muntuwandi?. However my legs and arms are long and i prefer the cold instead of hot, ¿How do you explain this?. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.18.185.54 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

I would guess after cro-magnons became settled and Agriculture came to europe from the middle east Europeans were able to use technology to keep warm so there was less pressure on body size. The bodies of East Asians and Inuit are very much adapted to the cold with shorter legs and longer trunks. One would then expect Europeans to have similar body proportions. Therefore another explanation is that people from Africa continued to arrive in Europe in the last 30,000 years. The bodies of Europeans are intermediate between East Asians and Africans in terms of body proportions.Muntuwandi 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Anyway that north europeans such as swedens or finnish have the body proportion of an inuit. Because inuits are quite shorter. Off corse, i'm talking in general terms. Then ¿We should suppose that homo sapiens sapiens had inuit proportions at that time arround europe?

On the other hand, in my opinion, you are totally accurated when you say that most of europeans are an intermediate between East Asians and Emmigrations of Africans of Middle East light skinned. It's not a bad description for nowadays europeans.

[edit] The importance of height

Besides aesthetics or maybe it is aesthetics as a group height seems important. From the time I started to contribute to this article I have delt with 2 people one was a chinese man who claimed china had the tallest height potential and with spatial IQ scores made them the superior race, the other was a Yugoslav who promoted these people as "huuuuuuuuuuuge". Also by tracking vandals histories height is changed favourably for their people and lessened for selected others. The importance of height isn't clear but the perception we want others to have of our height is for some reason. Gooogen(not rOm) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC). I haven't read the vandals history by now. May be in a future.

I wouldn’t talk of race of talls, I would talk of tall people or something like this..
I thing that in spain,at least, talls are not any race due to not all relatives have the same height. Even some realitves are tall a lot and others are simply short. So I’ve got the fear that you didn’t read the wickipedical article I posted before. The medium height of first European sapiens sapiens and direct ancestor of nowadays europeans was not a matter of aesthetics it’s was only a matter that this was the average height of that time, independently of nowadays people tastes of today. And it clearly reflects that height factor has not grow but, contrary to some people convictions or tastes, has diminished. But it has no sense, because, probably a part of your ADN was not in europe at this time. And as Muntuwandi said, proportions of some cromagnons needed to change in order to increase bone density.
Has I said before I think that to restrain humans only by their height has no sense.
Muntuwandi said some day: “The bodies of East Asians and Inuit are very much adapted to the cold with shorter legs and longer trunks. One would then expect Europeans to have similar body proportions”. Conclusion: if you are tall you rarely can be european, now go to northern europe and tell this to people.
I Think i'm done with this matter or concept. Take it easy: choose your ouwn preferred self-variable factors and enjoy. My only intention was to speak a bit about this onlooker concept. See U. insertcoin / 2:55h / 030807. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.19.207.237 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
I don't think climate is directly proportional to height, euros are hairier too. Neurtrally Euros are the tallest race based on measurements we have and I don't mean superior just taller. Telling a population with an average male height of 180cm(Norway) they are not tall because of one's surmising makes no sense since these northern european populations are the tallest. A healthy breakfast is also imporatant for intellectual development as well as physical devleopment hence the correlation between height and IQ amongst a sample population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
northern europeans are the tallest and the most intelligent race (the australian posted this). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.108.168 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC).
I know the northern euros are intelligent but intelligence is fuzzy compared to height which you is accurately measured. You're the second person who has come to this article and say a race is the tallest and most intelligent, the first was claiming the chinese were who are also intelligent(more than northern euros in some areas too and less in others) but much shorter. Height correlates with IQ I think because better nutrition and environment promotes optimal growth in all areas so we would expect a sample population of higher income to score higher and be taller which is the case. From this page it would be good to achieve explanations on what optimal height is and why amongst different peoples there are differences and why taller genetics are desirable some places and not as desirable in other places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

I am not a norwegian I am an Australian and of jewish/scottish descent so there is nothing in me that can identify myself as Scandanavian. Attacking my english skills was plain silly since your a spaniard and I'm guessing this was an ad hominem attempt to attack seomone who you thought was promoting his own people. In this case Norwegians. In any culture a taller than average person is more desirable than a shorter for aesthetical reasons since above the mean projects superior development and perhaps superior genes. On the male side of things height projects dominance, "to look down on someone" means to see a person as lower in power/status. One can choose to value mind over metre and I don't care if your IQ was 200 but correlations are the calculus of assumption, that is the more correlations you find the better the assumption you can make and the closer you get to the explanation. Once again tall doesn't mean a higher IQ but height does correlate with IQ as nutrition is fundemental to the development of both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

Well,i haven't claimed anything but the australian likes to start topics by himself so i will show my opinion:
IQ and tall can't be a mathematical correlation due to one can be tall but with tall and short, even short a lot relatives talking about height. So i think that IQ depends on the given brain and in most of cases on the use, and training on the brain. IQ Not depends on being short or on being tall from my point of view.
It's incredible to see how talking about the height of 'first wave of cromagnons' can induce people to speak from other topics. In any case continue talking of whatever... insertcoin / 22:43h / 040807.


I'll say you had 4 reverts due to vandalism when you lost your cool and attacked my english. I checked the history. As height goes increases the average IQ increases. This has been shown "spanish one". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

It hasn't been shown anything but a scientific and trully explanation. A well made short can be as inteligent as a well made tall and upside-down. Apart from this i didn't began such topic... insertcoin / 00:39h / 0160807.

I was not talking about a "mathematical equation" perse. No one ever used HGH as an intelligence enhancing drug. Amongst a population there is a correlation between height and IQ. That is if you measure the IQ's of for example 1000 people, and plot IQ scores vs height it has been shown that people 180cm+ will have a higher average IQ than people who are 170-75cm who have a higher average IQ than the 10-65 population i.e. a positively skewed line. This doesn't mean taller people are more intelligent than shorter people is means the taller population is generally more intelligent than the shorter population within a sample population. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.148.5.119 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

All right, i won't insist any more. I respect your opinion. I finish my discussion right here because this is starting to become a chat instead of a wickipedical discussion. See you later Australian. Regards. Insertcoin 18/08/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.53.214.44 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC).

insertcoin / 2:16/ 300807 text modified with the intention to order and synthesize

As a reaction to the point of climate not having much influence on the height I'd like to say the following: I don't assume that this is the only reason for increase in height in one or another way, but I do think there is a possibility that it has an influence. Other people in this discussion have already mentioned the fact that early humans (sorry for missing the name, but can't remember it at the moment) shrunk, to increase density and to survive better in the cold environment of northern Europe, as the climate has recently been increasing dramaticly, it could explain the sudden increase in height (the dutch people were much shorter fifty years ago, though now they are one of the tallest people on average), at least, combined with the better nurishment etcetra. This because of the fact that as now it isn't cold anymore, we (am European myself) would need a larger body to loose more heat and to survive. Just my two cents, am no professional or someone who has studied the subject, but this is how I thought of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.102.192 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, to know the height of the first wave of cromagnons that passed to europe basically from Middle East, we should ask archeology. And archeology stablishes the average height of 20.000 years ago in 185cm, wich is longer that actual averages. Important to note that those Middle East cromagnons got mixed with lately emmigrations of Asia, as europeans genes reflects. And that after this, Asian people continue reaching europe. So, may be, archeology should search for an average height of 10.000 years ago or something like that in many countries or regions of europe and euro-asia to answer wich was the average height of european cromagnons into cold conditions. In my opinion all talls and shorts (and mediums) have an ancestor as tall or as short as them. And if you are accurate while reading some history or archeology books (taking apart nowadays comercial issues) it seems to be totally truth. insert coin // 15 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.139.53 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed Average adult height around the world

It has no African height or Indian height! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.17.19.191 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Muntuwandi teory

Muntuwandi is mistaken when sais that cold reduces longuines of body extremities. I think this teory is only valid for extreme cold conditions and a lag of food and nutrients, not for cold places but with good nutrients and good food. The Muntuwandi teory doesn't seem to be valid for all people of northern europe. Muntuwandi only compares 2 extremes, not the entire world.

From my point of view Muntuwandi teory is only certain in two aspects:

1.The cro's that where tall but with a weak composition and complexity needed to get shorter, so the bone density got increased. But the tall cro's that haven't a weak complexity even being tall didn't need to lower so much, cause their bone density applied with no problem to cold conditions.

2.The nowadays genetic composition of europeans is not the same composition than the first wave of cro's that entered europe.

A part of this, nowadays modern humans can change their bone composition throught some techniches and disciplines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.58.140.228 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Norwegian pygmies

The tabular listing for Norway at appr. 140 cm is clearly wrong. As I cannot see anyone else commenting on it, I suppose someone has changed it recently, either as a mistake, or as a joke. Magnusoe 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been fixed. This vandelism happens often. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] No Horse Racing Section?

When I was reading through the article and got to the sports relevance section, I was assuming at least SOMETHING would have been written for short horse jockies. This (as I recall) is probally the sport with the highest per capita ratio of short people. RRM MBA 01:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height of African tribes

Muntuwandi, whatever his name is, or whoever keeps adding the names of various African tribes who are "known" (I'm rolling my eyes here) for "being the tallest people in the world" NEEDS TO STOP. Many of the tribes you mentioned (watutsis and maasai) are actually known for being BELOW average, let alone the tallest in the world. Unless you submit STUDIES that measured the height of these people and proved them to be the tallest in the world, any further submissions on your part stating that a certain African tribe is "known for being the tallest in the world" WILL BE deleted without any further explanation. Wikipedia is about FACTS, and NOT rumors. --Nop684 06:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think my username is spelled correctly, do you need help reading it. Muntuwandi 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent that you are the one who needs help reading, and not only your name. We all know what type of a person likes being hard behind their 15 inch LCD screen and a keyboard.

"In Africa, the Masai are known for their tallness"

What reputable source do you have that testifies to that? What else is the great tribe of Masai known for, other than "being known for their tallness"? Since you obviously had a hard time comprehending my first clearly and succinctly written post on this, let me state it again, clear and capped - PROVIDE A SOURCE WHICH TESTIFIES TO YOUR CLAIM THAT MASAI ARE TALLER THAN AVERAGE!!--Nop684 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

I have been lately deleting the same OR again and again as is comes from a banned user whose aim is to prove that northern chinese people are the tallest and smartest people in the world(see unfreeride's contribs). Lactose intolerance on the other hand might be a genetic defect which limits their height and should only be added if there is a correlation between height and lactose tolerance amongst a people like are the 2% of lactose intolerant northern europeans shorter than the rest. If so then this could contribute to asian people's shorter stature since 90% of east asians affected by this. Should this be used? If there are differences in height due to genetic factors like this then that proves that there are genetic differences in height amongst races. One could say 2% of northern europeans are prone to be shorter as are 90% of asian people. I don't think this article should be about racial differences in height since then this will attract supremacists of all races who will vandalise to compete as it already has. I think the height and race section should be scrapped otherwise this article will sink to the embarrassing level of race and intelligence topic and no doubt attract many of those users here to baffle. 124.168.39.104 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Yes, we haven't seen any information that lactose tolerance is the cause for height differences between populations, or even within populations. Until we have all references to lactose tolerance must not be included in the page as they are not verifiable and are original research.Negrit0 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Negrit0
I don't get it. These figures are the average anyway, so they include all height-affecting factors the population has, including any mutations or lack thereof. Why should a specific height-affecting trait be mentioned? Do we also provide the statistics on dwarfism in every race? Percentage of people beyond the poverty line? Eunichs? There are too many factors controlling height to track, so let's stick to cold and emotionless facts. • Maurog • 13:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but these you mentioned such as mutations, dwarfism, eunichs have a very subtle on East Asian and white heights anyway. I think we should include the significant factors. 2% of Northern Europeans and 93% of East Asians are lactose intolerant have a very signifacant factor on height. Differences in diet between East Asians and Northern Europeans are very different that have a substantial contribution on height between different populations.
I already have found an overwhelming number of sources in a few minutes whose main topic is focusing on environmental factors on Asian children height growth such as Asian diet. [1] [2] [3] [4]


There are actually much more sources on this stuff than we think.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.118.138.195 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC).
Lactose intolerance *is* a mutation, or rather a lack of one. About 6 thousand years ago, give or take a thousand, a mutation appeared that caused people to be able to continue consumption of milk through adulthood. Since it was a dominant allele, it spread quickly, and since it was a good survival trait (cow milk was abundant, and had very positive effect on those able to consume it), it persisted. Most modern Western Europeans have this mutation, and according to your material, most Asians apparently do not. I still fail to see the relevance to height - so, you claim Asian people could have grown higher if not for the lack of this mutation. That's irrelevant information, just like the fact that if W.Europeans didn't have it, they would be shorter (like they were 6K years ago). It's just a contributing factor to the variance in height. Significant enough to be mentioned? I don't think so.
PS: Your first two refs don't mention Asian children at all, the third doesn't load for me, and the fourth just shows an increase in growth without any mention of lactose intolerance. And none of them have any statistics to prove it's significant. • Maurog • 07:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That is the point. This is about height of a person not all the genetic factors that lead up to what is. If the race and height section persists it will become enormous with additions of every possible confound that can be thought of. You went through the archive so you must understand what I am getting at, especially the who is superior in height issue. Look how many times I have tried to cut a section about excuses for chinese lack of height so big that sometimes the cluebot reverts me after I undo it. Gooogen124.168.39.104 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In Process of Growth we have kept it simple and included the basic factors that affect growth. In race and height there is the tallest people of each race (although Wadlow is different to Bol and Bao xishun since he was a giant). I guarantee if the race and height section stays it will be vandalised with OR on skin whiteners stunting growth(and IQ... groan), melanin/sun exsposure slowing vitamin D production, soy/rice slowing growth and westerners having testosterone rich diets. If left long enough we'll see that unless we find a northern chinese population of males with darker skin whose mothers didn't use skin whiteners and gave them western diets, whose larger more powerful brains stunted their growth due to high calorie consumption and who aren't lactose intolerant then we stereotyping asian people as short will be an ongoing misconception. There will also be stuff about tribes in Africa being the tallest and northern europeans exaggerating heights to compete amongst themselves. We need to figure out what needs to be excluded and what can't be.Gooogen 17:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand I don't think this stuff is relevant and deleted it for that reason. I don't know if the "90%" was true but someone put it there amongst so much other irrelvant information to make this article about chinese nutrition rather than "human height".124.168.39.104 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I did not add any of these references. My above passage was a joke with reference to some of that irrelevant material I deleted.

[edit] The figures used for 18+ Australians are the self-reported figures rather than the measured figures from the referenced source.

I checked the source for the Australian figures and I'm sure that this article is using the self-reported figures rather than those measured. As the reference source reports, it was found during the course of this survey, that on average, males overestimated their heights by about 2.1 cm and females by 1.3 cm (there are seemingly many reasons for this). I went ahead and corrected these figures accordingly but they were then reverted back to the self-reported figures (which doesn't make a lot of sense to me). Can someone please explain why these changes were reversed back to the self-reported figures? Also, I would appreciate it if someone else could please verify what I have found in the reference material (page 11)? Many thanks. DC 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Younger males "overestimated" their heights by an average of 1.5cm. This may not entirely be due to deception, or error, but could also be because some people have measured themselves in the morning and this survey measured in the afternoon (height varies by maybe an inch over a day). Older groups seem to be less accurate, this could be due to either shrinking from age, or knowing height in imperial units (rounding up) and then converting that height incorrectly into cm etc

This table usually prefers younger groups to older groups for listing heights. One advantage of having the self reported and measured heights is that it provides a basis of comparison to other self reported and measured heights, also both figures are from the same referenced source (self reported and measured.)

Negrit0 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chinese height

We need to find a younger sample for the average height of China. They younger genration should be taller than 169 maybe around 171cm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.39.104 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Got to make the heights more realistic, that is why I'm starting with China beccause the unsourced Shandong keeps creeping in again and again. All I can say for sure is that UN source that a male of 175.8cm in 1989 would put him in the 90th percentile for the urban male population, thus 175.44cm as an average is way out since it is almost 2 stad dev over the average urban male height for China. It's like here in Austrlia claiming Melbourne's average of 190cm (i.e spprox 2 std dev above ave). Stick to countries and don't add provinces or cities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gooogen (talk • contribs) 12:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

"All I can say for sure is that UN source that a male of 175.8cm in 1989 would put him in the 90th percentile for the urban male population" that's original research. It's unacceptable select references from OR. All of the European nations height come from one country, one hospital. The Brazilians are measured in the Upper Middle Class which is higher, which is unacceptable by your criteria. But why china is have to be general? It's hard to defend one user imitating two. SnakeBump 3:34 September 2007----

It's not original research cause the UN did the math for us putting heights in percentiles. The upper class stuff was taken down cause it was a bias sample as well as the chinese med students who self measured themselves at 171cm. (Gooogen back in OZ).124.171.23.14 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ameicans and western Europeans are getting shorter

Turns out fast foods have an adverse effect on height. -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.229.2 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC).

And this discussion had people from the east saying they would be as tall as the west if they were brought up on western diets. Thank god that I remove original research from this article.Gooogen 14:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tallest man



It states that the tallest man ever lived is 2.50 meters tall or somthing close to that, however, I think it would be more accurate to say that this is the tallest man on record, not the tallest who ever lived. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AriaNo11 (talk • contribs).

That's fair enough I think

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Negrit0 (talk • contribs) 14:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Heights

Someone's been messing with the heights for the US, and I changed them back. Don't vandalize the numbers. --Criticalthinker 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deneric Alps

How reliable are the heights for the Deneric Alps What size sample was taken and what cross section of the population was covered? If those questions can not be answered then the statistic should be quoted with a mention of it's reliability or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.56.21 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article - it lists source q as the reference[5]. So 2705 boys and 2842 girls aged 17 years is your sample population. Please read the sources. • Maurog • 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


To answer wether a height is reliable or not, just take a homolgated metric tape. Not all metric tapes are correctly homolgated, since them do not show the same numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.206.164 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Listing of female and male

I changed the order of the columns so that female height would be listed first. User:Maurog has taken a hard-line stance against doing this in this article and in several others, claiming at once that it "goes against convention",1 that it "does not match the order in which the sources present the information",2 and that my changes constitute "vandalism"3 and "suspect motives".45 I would like to address all these concerns. First, if this truly is an issue of vandalism, I do not see how any of the other arguments would come into play. Vandalism is vandalism, it is never appropriate. Yet Maurog has seen fit to argue the finer points of my edits, so I must discard the accusation that this is vandalism. Now that we are past this, the second argument is that the sources list this information in the order where men are listed first, women second. To this I say: What obligation do we have to preserve the order in which information is presented in a source? Very frequently sources will be used only for one sentence, even only for one phrase, and the phrases in a single source may be used in different places throughout an article. They are source material for creating the best and most neutral article we can. Which brings me to my third point: that this edit supposedly "goes against convention". I need not go into a diatribe about all the harmful conventions that have existed in human society. Maurog, do you purport that we have overcome every last social ill? We are totally enlightened, and there remain no conventions which serve to oppress or denigrate certain members of society? Certainly this cannot be your meaning. The existence of a convention is not proof that it is the best way. If that were the case, all the ability to edit Wikipedia must be shut down immediately, as there is no room for improvement any longer. Surely this is not the case either. What good is a convention if it prevents us from attaining an NPOV?

I intend, therefore, to challenge this painful convention so frequently repeated here on the great Wikipedia. Why must we list men, so frequently, before women? I brought this as a challenge to our minds and to the editors here that we may be more egalitarian in our description of the sexes. I am instead branded as a vandal by Maurog, told that I am "messing up" this community project. I peacefully defy these assertations. In my heart I envision a truly peaceful and enlightened society. I feel that at Wikipedia we have the opportunity to show how by collaborating together we can build great things. Why persecute me? Look deeper and you will see my true intentions.

Therefore I open the discussion to other editors of Wikipedia. Do you feel that it is more appropriate, if listing attributes of women and men, to list men first? Do you observe this as a convention, and if so, do you view this as just and righteous? Do you feel that we have an obligation to maintain male-first listing if a source lists it that way? Do you feel that there is a better alternative? Most importantly, WHY do you feel this way? I look forward to reading your responses. I have placed the POV template at this page and at the others at which Maurog and I clashed, in the meantime. 68.163.233.173 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is very simple - lists in articles will be in the same order as lists in sources they were taken from. This makes comparing the sources and articles for purposes of verifying data that much easier. The "convention" was brought up by anon .173, since the "males first" theory originates from hir. If anon .173 wants to break the "convention", all sie needs to do is change the world rather than Wikipedia, which merely reflects it. When we will have sources that list females first, we will have articles that list females first. I personally don't care one bit who's first, for me Wikipedia comes first. • Maurog • 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I see exactly what you are saying, 68.163.233.173. Women and men need to be treated equally, here on Wikipedia and beyond. I am always the first to make sure an article uses "he or she"/"his and her" rather than "he"/"she". However, I do agree with you, Maurog, that it should go along with the source. I can assure both parties that this is unbiased, as I am a woman myself. I don't feel like it's POV. If it was women first, another could argue that same case that you are: that it would be POV for putting women first over men. One sex has to be first, and we'll use males since that's how it is in the source. It just makes things easier. I'm not offended by it here, and I don't think you should be either. I truly feel that it's nothing personal.

Both of you have a common goal: to better Wikipedia. I hope that this helped you two find common ground, and happy Wikying.  hmwith  talk 06:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that while Maurog has put on a public face of civility in this talk page, using a gender neutral pronoun, that he is perfectly willing to make personal assumptions: here, he calls me "she" and refers to my changes as "feministic", literally putting them in quotes, and here, he has said that I have started "some ridic. debates" and that he must "watch closely". Does this strike you as being based in good faith? 68.163.233.173 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Please keep my personal pages out of this debate. Thank you. • Maurog • 11:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of either or your personal actions, it won't affect what I think is the right thing to do. Are you a female? It doesn't really matter, but I would assume so, as well, since it'd be much more likely based on your actions. And as for feminism, the first two sentences in the article state:

"Feminism ...[is]... concerned with gender inequalities and discrimination against women. Feminism is also described as an ideology focusing on equality of the sexes."

Do you disagree that what you are doing is trying to make the sexes equal on Wikipedia and standing up for women who are typically listed second to men? To me, that's literally a complete summary of what you're doing. It's a great thing! Not an insult. Maybe some people will use it negatively, but it is positive in theory, and you are just trying to make a change here, even if it's just a little one, to go against "convention", and make women first. Kudos! However, we'll just leave it like the source for simplicity and organizational reasons.

But I do completely agree that both sexes should be treated 100% equally in a generic situations... but someone has to be first, and by putting women first all of the time instead, that would be unequal once again. Here, however, it doesn't have to be a big debate, as we should just follow the source. Whether or not the person who wrote the source is sexist, that isn't the issue here.

I hope heated feelings calm down a bit, and you can begin to put your positive ideals in use at Wikipedia. We need more editors who would like to make sure all articles have gender-neutral language. I always try to do this as well.  hmwith  talk 17:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Males were listed first and this was switched. If I switched them back it is likely I have an agenda? I imagine that if I did whoever switched them originally would switch them back for the same reason. In the table one can see males and females next to each other or males on the left and females on the right or the taller sex first. You could see men listed first women second and then see this as a problem. I guess if there is a convention use it otherwise this occurs. Gooogen 17:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Males are listed first in some of the sources, and some of the sources only have male height because they come from conscript exams. So really, the reason that male height is listed first is sex discrimination against men (because women are generally exempt from conscription). Whatever the case, the male sex has been listed first in this article since it's inception and this will not change simply to be politically correct.

The worst solution would be a compromise (such as listing males first in metric and females first in imperial) because it is likely to only decrease clarity. 220.253.71.19 12:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Heights Vandalized

I had found an official INSEE (Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques) height figure for France which was better than any of the current sources, and someone removed it. I hadn't been able to check this page for most of August, so there is no way I could undo the vandalism even if I could find it. I want whoever removed that height to find it again at http://www.insee.fr/fr/home/home_page.asp and resubmit it. Again, it was better than any of the current heights found. --Criticalthinker 22:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy and precision

Taiwan 171.38 cm 159.2 cm 5 ft 7.5 in 5 ft 2.6 in 17 bb

Why is the male cm figure given to such high precision compared to the rest? Where did anybody find such a precise figure (to the tenth of a millimetre!) anyway?

Japan 172.18 cm 158.92 cm 5 ft 7.9 in 5 ft 2.7 in 20-24 m²

This is clearly wrong. The ranges of the figures don't even overlap! They are (in cm):

from cm figure from in figure
Male 172.175 - 172.185 172.339 - 172.593
Female 158.915 - 158.925 159.131 - 159.385

-- Smjg 13:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's a hundredth of an inch. Someone probably just made a rounding error. The data is still genuine. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 17:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay I meant a tenth. Let's just fix it and end this please? Haplolology Talk/Contributions 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've tweaked the figures a bit. I would have fixed the data myself if I had any way of knowing whether it's the imperial or the metric that's correct. -- Smjg 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] torso to leg ratio

"contrary to popular belief, men are the "leggier" sex with a longer leg to torso ratio, conversely to women's longer torso to leg ratio." - Does anyone have a reference for this? I can't find anything on the web that states this other than this article. Lots of cycling websites state the opposite. Would be good to have a link to research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.66.158 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is called sexual dimorphism and is hormonally induced (namely the sex hormones: androgens, estrogens, and the aromatase enzyme), determined genetically by the sex chromosomes. In fact, those with XYY syndrome exhibit twice the male-female difference in stature and some studies indicate a weak difference correlated with sexual orientation as well. Although mean stature itself varies, the sexual dimorphism is remarkably stable through time both intra- and inter- population, averaging about 13 cm in adult stature. Changes through time (due to changes in environment) are mostly leg length changes. The sexual dimorphism in stature is also due to greater leg length in males, which occurs primarily because of their longer prepubertal growth period with a small addition also from slightly more growth during the pubertal spurt.
For more information look to the fields of human biology, specifically morphology and anthropology, as well as the fields of auxology and pediatric endocrinology. Evolauxia 06:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the view that women in general have a longer leg to torso ratio than men is commonly mentioned in cycling discussions and articles on riding position and bike/frame size. I've always thought it was a myth, something that has been repeated so often by cyclists it has become accepted as fact in cycling. My own observation is that taller people have a longer leg to torso ratio than shorter people, and since most women are shorter than men, women in general have a shorter leg to torso ratio than men. LDHan 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting sources

I deleted the Chinese height because of contradictory sources. We don't need them. I wonder why newly created users keep adding them. IMO, to push their POV. I welcome good faith comments for this. 72.94.48.149 03:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese height is still there. What do you mean? What is contradictory about the sources? 124.170.169.168 18:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC) Isn't saying, "IMO to push one's POV" then asking one to assume good faith hypocritical?124.170.169.168 18:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Heights

Am I the only here who suspects that that American heights are racists? No other country has heights for different groups of citizens... It´s just a question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fede24 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there arent many other countries on the list that have more than one race. Heck, there's not even one African country on the list. Delete the American Blacks figures and you are left with no figures for blacks anywhere. I don't see how information about height can possibly be considered racist. Besides, even if it was, I would be in favor of retaining it here, because this is supposed to be a place where you can find truth, not politically correct maybe-truths. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 18:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a place of truth since the average heights don't change 4cm daily and the other reason is that different sources of one nation's height shouldn't vary by as much either.For example in the chinese version of this article you'll see a different story in which the heights of coutries are turned upside down and Provnces claiming average heights of 178cm which sounds unlikely lke America with living standards not so great comparing tall to Europeans. The english version of this article is biased towards english speaking countries who contribute to it. Other languages have their versions which the average english speaker will be written off as a vandal if they continually interfere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.46.152 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli Average Height

Further to the remark about what seemed to be 'racism' in American heights, Israel is another example of a place where an overall average cannnot provide an accurate picture. Israelis from European origins are taller than Israelis from Mid-East origins (Arab countries), and People who grew in the Kibutzim are far taller than the city people. In the recent two decades there seemed to be a decline of the average height, but the mass immigration of Russian Jews has once again pulled the average up. To add on the confusion - native Israelis under 50 are significantly taller than their parents who immigrated from other countries. It is therefore very difficult to get any clear image of what's the height of the typical Israeli. It could be anywhere in the 5'8" to 6' range, and seem 'average', depends on where you happen to be walking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.10.22 (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • But, this is true of just about any immigrant nation. Israel is not the only case. We find the best numbers we can until better measurements are taken. It's really that simple, and you really need to stop complaining. --Criticalthinker (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I wrote the above remark about Israeli average height. I agree that people should stop complaining and taking it as some sort of national pride thing. About immigrant nations - this is exactly was I was trying to point out. In many cases (Israel and USA as example) it is useless to try and measure a country's average height, except where the population is very homogeneous. You will always find different groups and different zones within the country, and sometimes they are mingled among one another. Even in the small Netherlands there is a difference between north and south. So it will be more accurate (as much as these things can be accurate at all) to measure areas and ethnic groups rather than a country. A country is just a border. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.151.81 (talk) 06:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Before anyone reverts the last edit to this article (the Brazilian height) for being vandalism, I checked it out and it seems to be correct after all. The previous value was far too tall, and although it might be true as a value for, say, 21-year-olds, I could not find that exact value anywhere in the two sources quoted so it can't be used.

By the way, I think the vandalism level on this article is out of hand and I wouldn't rely on the data in this table for anything. I am planning to find out all the correct data, post it on a website (along with the Kurabe data), and recommend that the table here be deleted since it can't be kept reliable. Haplolology Talk/Contributions 18:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height distribution

I have added a table showing distribution of adult heights in the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And what about 6'7"? D@rk talk 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The 99.99th percentile i.e one in one thousand for the USA is 6ft 6 inch for men - anyone taller is outside the statistical norm - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The Table below was removed by avandal from an IP address rather than a registered user, I am including in talk page

[edit] Human Height Distribution (USA)

Table showing percentile smaller than stated height
Height (feet/inch) Height (cm) Male Female
4ft 11in 150cm 0% 4.6%
5 ft 0in 152cm 0.2% 9.7%
5ft 1in 155cm 0.5% 17.7%
5ft 2in 157cm 1.4% 28.9%
5ft 3in 160cm 3.1% 42.5%
5ft 4in 162cm 6.4% 57.1%
5ft 5in 165cm 11.9% 70.6%
5ft 6in 167cm 20% 81.8%
5ft 7in 170cm 30.7% 89.7%
5ft 8in 172cm 43.3% 94.7%
5ft 9in 175cm 56.8% 97.5%
5ft 10in 177cm 69.5% 98.8%
5 ft11in 180cm 80.1% 99.3%
6 ft 0in 182cm 88.2% 99.5%
6ft 1in 185cm 93.6% 99.6%
6ft 2in 187cm 96.8% 99.9%
6ft 3in 190cm 98.6% 99.9%
6ft 4in 193cm 99.4% 99.9%
6ft 5in 195cm 99.7% 99.99%
6ft 6in 198cm 99.9% 99.99%
6ft 7in 200cm 99.9% 99.99% 
- Source - This data is based on a sample of 12,867 people by the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 1988 and 1994. Study is based on Adults between 18 and 65 (men) and 60 (women)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ala.foum (talk • contribs) 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real height

Sometimes I wonder what is the real human height. I mean, at night, I'm at least one inch (3 centimetres) shorter than in the morning, out of bed. D@rk talk 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it with or without shoes on? Lionheart1979 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-control vandalism and corrupt data

I think something needs to be done about the table of human heights near the beginning of this article. I can find errors in almost half the entries just by doing some source-checking:

  • Argentina: stated values dont match the source.
  • Australia: stated values dont match the source, and the metric and imperial units don't agree.
  • Belgium: source given is that of Australia.
  • Brazil: "168.99"? The source simply says 169. So this, too, doesnt match the source, although the difference is quite small.
  • Denmark: data for females reported in a source that lists only males.
  • Germany: stated values dont match the source (although again the difference is trivial).
  • India: this entry was vandalized by the same person who added it. Then the vandalized value was replaced with another incorrect value. Now, the metric and imperial units don't agree and the imperial column suggests that men and women in India are the same height.
  • Spain: metric and imperial values dont agree with each other, and one of the entries disagrees with its source.
  • USA: some values dont match their sources.

This is not the accumulation of months worth of unwatched vandalism; vandalism revertion has been going on since the article began and yet these problems still exist. So I would recommend that the table be either protected, or removed from the article in order to prevent incorrect information from creeping in. I have placed a table on my website here that contains only values that I have verified to agree with their sources, and whose sources are accessible at the URLs given or were previously accessible at those URLs and have been reported by other studies (mostly kurabe.net). I am not going to bother copying the table over to Wikipedia because I know it wouldn't last long before being vandalized, and because I imagine that people would object to perfectly legitimate data contained within it, as they have done in the past. I do not want to see the table deleted, because that would discourage editors from adding new data, so I am just going to leave things as they are now and resign from the task of reverting vandalism on this article.Haplolology Talk/Contributions 18:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you , we need to block this page for editing by IP, but I don't know how I do this. The table os average height is always vandalize.
Yea, and the people from the US are seen they don't know the height in cm. Actually the cm and ft of each county doesn't match. And the title says "Average". But of When? I think we should talk a policy (what year we should take and how many are allowed to each countries, etc)for the table fisrt then add the data. --221.191.22.252 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The {{convert}} template could be used to help keep the metric and imperial values consistent; for example,
{{convert|172|cm|ftin|1|abbr=on}}
{{convert|172.6|cm|ftin|1|abbr=on}}
reliably converts cm to feet and tenths of an inch, producing:
172 cm (5 ft 7.7 in)
172.6 cm (5 ft 8.0 in)
However, {{convert}} doesn't currently support the insertion of a <br> after the "cm", as is done in the current table. A new template that invokes {{convert}} could be created to do that, I suppose.
Wdfarmer (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose table moved to separate article and then protected

Vandalism is indeed a serious, long term, and incessant problem. The vast majority of the vandalism and interest in the article is the table of stature by nationality. That table should be cleaned up, sources confirmed as reliable, and then the data in the table crosschecked. Then, I propose that the table be moved to its own article, and protected (which requires an admin). The majority of all activity in the article is in regards to the table as well, with comparatively little activity improving the explanation of growth and height and significance thereof. This would make it easier to check vandalism on the table and hopefully lead to improvement of the "meat" of the height article. The associations between groups and similar aspects would still have to be monitored for original research and outright vandalism. Evolauxia (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that idea myself earlier, but I wonder if you mean totally protected or just semi-. Because if it is totally protected, no one can add to it, and it hardly serves its purpose. But semi-protection might be a good idea to keep away the more frivolous vandals. Soap Talk/Contributions 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean semi-protected. That'll cut down on the anonymous edits and also make it easier to check on new edits from registered users that may or may not be good faith. For aesthetic reasons, for many articles, large tables are moved to their own page, anyway. Evolauxia (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. Move the average height table to a separate article and put it in a total protetion is the best way to avoid vandals. And also the article doesn't become to long.italodal (talk) 01:24, 08 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unused sources

I integrated the sources into footnotes in the table, but there were some left over that weren't used anywhere. These may be good for future research. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

c = 'Fitting the Task to the Man'
ger = Official statistics ot the Federal Statistical Office of Germany
d = Netherlands Central Bureau for Statistics, 2000
e = Eurostats Statistical Yearbook 2004
f = Statistics Norway 2006 [6]
h = Leiden University Medical Centre 1997
l = Statistics Sweden
aa² = Empas news (website in Korean)

[edit] UK Female height in Imperial figures

The conversion from Metric to Imperial is incorrect, according to the Google calculator function (Prompted by my own knowledge of the rough answer). The Metric figure of 163.7 cm should be 5 feet, four inches, and 44/100ths of an inch. 64.44 inches. 5'4.44". The URL for the google conversion is: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=1637mm+in+inches&btnG=Search&meta= So, I am changing it, on the assumption that the metric figure is correct (the figures for males do match when converted from metric to imperial). Oliver 217.171.129.71 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice source for historical heights

There's a nice source for historical heights over here. Esn (talk) 05:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] why was the the table on height distribution removed?

I think the table on height distribution for Americans was a good addition. The poster said he added it, but who ever must have removed it did say why(at least as far as i could see). —Preceding unsigned comment added by TizzyFoe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont remember who removed it, but I can give two good reasons for not bringing it back: 1) it contradicted the data presented above (it said the US male height average was 5'8.5", which is way too small), and 2) it took up way too much space for the very small amount of data provided (it didnt even show females) ... a graph would be better. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think either you are looking at the wrong table or misinterpreting the information in it.

1) it does contradict the data already on the page, but not by much. It says that 50th for males percentile falls somewhere between 5'8" and 5'9" (5'8.5" would be a good guess). The average US 20+ male height is 5'9.3". .8" off doesn't seem that bad to me. Females fall between 5'3" and 5'4" on the which agrees with the table on the page.

2)It does show information for females (the right most column). I agree a graph would be better, but since no one as made one, I still think the table would be a good addition.

I came the the wikipedia because i wanted to know the % of people i was taller then. I couldn't find it so i did a bunch of google searches that turned up nothing. I ended up wandering to the talk page and was shocked to find the exact info i wanted (although i guess it might be off by .8")

(sorry if i'm not replying in the correct formate, i'm new to talk and couldn't find a reply button so i used the edit) TizzyFoe (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attention: original research has found interesting results

Over the past few weeks, I have spent my idol hours on the net ascertaining my own statistical details. Naturally, I cannot measure individuals and write an article on that finding, however, using the net, I recently consulted a German soccer website which contains height details of players including their country of nationality/citizenship. The site being eufo.de[7], selecting "clubs", and bingo, select one and measure the heights given. Now personally, I'm not the biggest of football fans, but I know that it is one of the non-discriminatory sports unlike showjumping or basketball where-by short and tall people are drawn. In soccer, a 2-meter giant in central midfield and play against a 1,60cm midget in the same position. The exception is the tall goalkeeper whose stature cannot reflect national height. The players are also reasonably young. I recorded my own statistics which I won't bother to send a link for (as they are purely my own). But here is what I found:

  • Germany: Looking at the outfield players, and trying hard to leave out non-German ethnic players with German nationality, which is clear from a player's name as sometimes it is blatantly Turkish or from an Arabian country, and seeing that sometimes there is a mixture as the player has an Italiate or Spanish name followed by a German surname; I selected photos and sometimes established them as having dark non-German features and so I left them out. Of the pure Germans, having scoured every club and looked back through the earlier seasons, making sure not to record the same person twice, I estimated that from over a thousand footballers, the German average height is 189.6. A number of clubs do not have a single ethnic German shorter than 1,83cm which means six feet. It may seem tall, but the number of players 1,90-1,95 who pop up from nowhere, seeimg so random is remarkable. Reading 1,81 on the page appears so short.
  • Netherlands: It is common for Dutch nationals to have Dutch names and be of Surinamese or Indonesian origin, in addition to the thousands of ethnic Moroccans and Turks with Dutch passports. To find a fair number to apply to the Dutch, these had to be removed from the scoring. To do this, I searched their images on Google. As such, I found that the Dutch outfield football player average, from hundreds, was 190.2 by my own estimate. Again, many players above 1,90; virtually all above 1,83 (6 ft), and very few below that landmark.
  • Montenegro: Shocking results. It proved very difficult as well with its present situation. Many players are listed as "Serbian", presumably because they chose to keep that nationality after the split-up. But their club history often revealed that they only played for Montenegrin sides, so I included all Serbs & Montenegrins in Montenegro, followed by just those makred MNE across the rest of the countries. It will surely produce an accurate number if not exact. The average I found it to be was 179.1. Naturally there are many players whose heights are not listed, and whose you simply cannot find via the search engines, but when the only five listed are all below six feet tall, particularly when the Germans and Dutch barely have five so short across four clubs on average, you cannot expect too many to be tall. No recorded players are any higher than 1,94; low for the tallest and seemingly normal for the Germans and Dutch, and if anybody thinks that this is incorrect, then as I am writing, Montenegro is currently playing against Kazakhstan in a football match. The players clearly average the same height, and Kazakhstanis are profoundly short. Such a phenomenon is never the case when Holland or Germany play an eastern country. I believe that this can surely stand as a source to give the average heights listed above unless someone can produce a different estimate. Evlekis (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Was someone just pulling my leg, or are people different heights at different times of the day? When are they taller/smaller? By how much? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.75.10 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are estimates, that is why; each verdict is based on the results of a study where-by a finite number of individuals were measured. They were indeed taken at different times, and in various quantity; the heights listed also pertain to the information given with regards to the age group of the persons measured. People aged 20-30 will certainly average higher than the over-all average including pensioners etc. Evlekis (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to this study or whatever it is. I just wondered why people are taller in the morning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.172.173 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on height-variation during life?

Current entry at end of opening para of main article:

"The maximal height that an individual attains in adulthood is not maintained throughout life if that life is a very long one. Again, depending on chromosomal (male v. female), genetic, and environmental factors, there is shrinkage of stature that may begin in middle age in some individuals but is universal in the extremely aged. This decrease in height is due to such factors as decreased height of inter-vertebral discs because of dessication, atrophy of soft tissues, and postural changes secondary to degenerative disease."

Can someone please go beyond the above, by supplying some general indication of how human height tends to vary with age?

I have been tracking my (quite variable) Body Mass Index for 7 years (due mainly to weight variation (lol)), and recently realised that I don't know how to distribute the corresponding portion of height-loss (measured on rising). By lopping off the lost height (from the data, not from the corpus), I find my BMI has exceeded 30 for a couple of periods in the last 7 years (and has been as low as a height-corrected 27.0).

Having lost about 1", between the ages of 18 and 60 (without trauma or disease), I expect that the majority of this height loss has occurred in the last 10-15 years. Can anyone improve on a rather simplistic assumption of a simple linear height-loss, over the last 15 years?

Is there any time-series data on human height changes, aggregated over some suitable sample?

To a first approximation, I would assume that the general shape of a height-loss graph is similar for most human populations, even if the end-points needed to be adjusted for groups with different life expectancies. Is it sigmoid (loss of soft tissue halted by bone contact) or a falling exponential (spinal bone-loss continues after soft tissue loss?)? How far through expected life does a height reduction tend to start becoming observable?

(I'm not a medic, but a PhD chemist turned management-science teacher) 163.119.186.204 (talk) 11:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)