Talk:Human height/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Human height. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Why the hell...?

Why the hell do you erase data from nationwide anthropometric studies (e.g. Iran, Czech republic, Thailand, Dinaric Alps) and fill the table with absolutely worthless "self-reported" values? Why do you do it?! Centrum99 (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Should "Sports" be broken out into it's own article?

Considering this is the single largest section perhaps a new article should be created specifically discussing this topic and the section here be reduced to a jump to the new topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talk • contribs) 10:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Human height, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tallest Man

I removed this

"At 2.57 m (8 ft 5 in), Leonid Stadnyk, of Zhytomyr Oblast, Ukraine, is believed to be the world's tallest living man, although his height is disputed because of his refusal to be measured."

It well established that Kosen is much taller than Stadnyk. Stadnyk is in the 7' 6" range by most estimates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimbazumba (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fossil Giant of Castelnau

Maybe the article should mention something about the large human bones found in a Bronze age tumulus from Castelnau-le-Lez, France. The discovery was covered in the NY Times, and the size of the bones were about double the ordinary for normal humans. G. de Lapouge estimated the subject at about 3,50 m in height in the science journal La Nature vol. 18, 1890. I just think an article on human stature should mention such a discovery. --75.175.54.134 (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

People growing for unusual lengths of time

I was hoping to find something in this article about the phenomenon of people continuing to grow in adulthood. In my family this happens a lot. My uncle grew 5 inches between graduating high school and the age of 25, when he finally stopped growing. I've grown 3 inches since graduating high school, with the last inch between the ages of 30 and 34. Are there any good sources for this so it could be incorporated in the growth abnormalities section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.213.213 (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A shame

It's a shame that this article is full of s***. People! this is not a competition, it is an encyclopedia. I've read most of the sources and some of them are a f******* joke. Many have a scientific aproach but others don't. I have and idea, let's write 1,89 for all and everybody happy. 201.254.98.59 (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Or how about let's just list the men at 3,50 and the women at 3,25! --75.175.77.180 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've written a small paragraph on "caveats" to the height data explaining why some of the data may be inaccurate. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Borjomi Giant

Maybe the article should mention something about the Borjomi giant found in 2008 in Georgia. The press account says the giants was nearly 3 meters tall.

Giants 3 Meters Tall Found in Georgia (Caucasus) & France

--75.175.56.126 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sports Section Garbage

The entire sports section is original research, and complete garbage. It doesn't need to exist at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.81.14 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Latvia and Pakistan

Who added Latvia and Pakistan? I don't mind that they are added, but you can't add uncited work like that. Find the source of the info and then re-enter it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ideal height is 6ft 2 for men and 5 ft 8 for women?

John Komlos, a prominent height historian at the University of Munich, states that the ideal heights are six foot two (1.88 m) for men and five foot eight (1.73 m) for women—because they are the optimum "biological standard of living."

What sort of BS is this? What exactly does "Optimum biological standard of living" really mean? And what qualifies someone to be the optimum biological standard of living? Sorry, but this "height historian" from Germany sounds like he is simply voicing his cosmetic preference as apposed to what is normal and healthy, and I think his conclusions should be challenged in the article. Someone correct me if I am wrong. --75.175.77.130 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Komlos is an economist who's working well outside of his field here. He's written some papers in which he seems to speculate that genetic height differences don't exist ("except for Pygmies", he says) and that every ethnic group will grow to pretty much exactly the same height if they live in the same societies and eat the same foods. But the website that his papers are hosted on seems to be down now. —Soap— 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Protect for good

I think this ought to be protected against anonymous editors permanently. They do nothing but vandalize this article with bogus figures. Pristino (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My ideal solution would be to have the height figures stored in a template and the rest of the page still open to anonymous editing, but it seems a long standing tradition on Wikipedia is not doing that. —Soap— 14:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been advocating for an enhancement to ClueBot NG so that it might pick up this sort of edit and revert automatically. (This is certainly not the only article afflicted by such nefarious edits.) It's also possible that we write another bot to revert this specific problem. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Chile

The Chile data is overkill. You need only two categories just like most other nations: one showing the younger generation (20 and 30's somethings), and one for all adults (as close as one can get to 20+). We don't need five or six different age groups just for Chile. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you justify the U.S. and U.K. both having five categories each? Are ethnic/national groups more relevant than age groups in your view? Pristino (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To be quite frank, yes. There is no need for so many age categories. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

EN 13402 (international standard) height

The height according to the EN_13402 standard for men/women from S to XL are not mentioned. Please fix this 91.182.246.156 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The page is protected now, so that only "confirmed" editors can modify it. What would you want to see added, and ideally, where? Just a link to EN 13402? —Soap— 14:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... someone messed with the Israeli averages :-)

Maybe for political reasons, but that's just a speculation. Anyway, the table now lists Israeli men as 1.73m on average, which obviously can't be true. The source quoted is allegedly the Central Bureau of Statistics, but the said bureau does not hold any such data about human height. If you search the net, be it in English or Hebrew, you will not find any evidence or support to those numbers. There are two reliable sources, one is a research made between the years 1980-2000, with results of circa 1.76m for men and 1.63m for women, but that might be a bit outdated: http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/1/51/T1 A more recent data can be found in Dr. Tzvi Tzadik MD's records, he is an expert of growth and height issues and has collected height data since 1977 till the present. His records list average for men as 1.77m and for women 1.66m: http://www.health-pages.co.il/article.php?article_id=1667 Another orthopedic research, though very informal, also refers to 1.77m as the average in a group of men: http://www.e-med.co.il/emed/new/usersite/content.asp?CatID=11&ContentID=165007 That seems to make more sense. As said, there is no 'formal' average, however it is surely not 1.73m :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.84.115 (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed with a reference to your link. You are probably right that someone tried to manipulate Israeli height for political reasons -- foolish as it may be.

Bennyman (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Longevity

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the statement "Longevity-wise, being tall is a good thing" seems to be in violent opposition to one of the cited works:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/?tool=pmcentrez

which says "we found several studies that showed a negative correlation between height and longevity" and concludes "animal and human data suggest that larger body size independently reduces longevity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmigoNico (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix it. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To Centrum99

Pasted from Dinaric source:

Our investigation covering 2705 boys and 2842 girls aged 17 years, shows that, contrary to the general belief, adolescents of the Dinaric Alps are, on average, the tallest in Europe. With an average height of 185,6 cm, they are taller than Dutch adolescents (184 cm on average). Above all, the density of very tall subjects appears to be characteristic of the Dinaric Alps, since 28% measure 190 cm or more in height, as opposed to only 20% in Holland and 1.5% in France. Although our information is not complete, adolescent girls in the Dinaric Alps, with an average height of 171 cm come a close second to girls in Holland.

Can you explain where it says that the Dinaric male average is 1.846 and where it states that 1cm has been added on to compensate for unfinished growth? Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what? Post here your email address. I will send you the whole article. O.K.?

Can you understand that the value 184.6 cm was really measured and 185.6 is a fiction, an estimate? 89.235.44.18 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I really wouldn't complicate it further. Let's list the measured value 1.846 m in 17-years olds - that's the only data we can use from the article. Everything else is fiction. Centrum99 (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean by fiction, that's what everyone else means by "self-reported". The "measured" will outweigh the other. Is that all right? Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of self-reported data is worthless as well. I would erase everything of this sort from the article. I have a lot of data at hand, by the way, and I can substitute many self-reported values by objective measurements - this concerns Belgium, Germany, Indonesia, Thailand, and certainly Netherlands (who did include self-reported data, when very representative Dutch samples are available?!). Centrum99 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have measured Dutch heights, please post them. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Niewenweg R, Smit ML, Walenkamp MJ, Wit JM. Adult height corrected for shrinking and secular trend. Ann Hum Biol. 2003 Sep-Oct;30(5):563-9. 21 YEARS: men 184.0 cm, women 170.6 cm. The data come from a survey made in 1997, but they are still useable, because the secular trend in the Netherlands stopped. The most actual data from 2010 reported 183.8 cm in men and 170.7 cm in women. Centrum99 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 90.194.74.86, 4 March 2011

Can someone familiar with editing please add a height entry for UAE . 173.4 cm for males and 156.4 for females . Here is a link to the source http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/18/6/295/_pdf . the relevant information is on the 2nd last page (302) . I'm fully aware that the report(2008)deals mainly with children heights but the highlighted averages are those of adults. Thank you very much .

-- Faris 90.194.74.86 (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the contribution! -- ke4roh (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The reported heights are way too short

Average young white men in North America are about 5'11". I tried to add a source but it was removed. SamanthaG (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

5'11? That's 1.82cm, there is no chance of that. That would make white Americans taller than Czechs, Slovaks, Estonians, Swedes, Germans, Danes, Norwegians and Fins. If that were remotely possible we'd know, because they'd be characterised by one giant every handful. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And even though white Americans may indeed have descent in the above nations and mixtures of them, the majority are British Isles-Americans (UK & Ireland origin). This is why there is only a fraction of a difference - which is in favour of the North Americans. Evlekis (Евлекис) 11:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Евлекис's conjectures may be true. Nonetheless, the claim that 'average young white men in North America are about 5'11"' (or something to that effect) can be justifiably included in this article given that an authoritative source is referenced to substantiate the claim. However, such should probably not replace any of the existing data that warrant inclusion due to being sufficiently substantiated, etc. --82.31.164.172 (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is a source then there is no problem. The fact that there had been one removed may suggest that it was not reliable but without seeing anything, I cannot be sure. Evlekis (Евлекис) 07:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually wrote a whole article about height with tons of data but it seems to have been deleted. SamanthaG (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the reference I tried to add to the article[1]SamanthaG (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why such a useless debate? NHANES 2003-06 reports 178.9 cm in 664 white Americans aged 20-39 years. As for their origin, you should know that the biggest part came from Germany, followed distantly by Ireland and England. Since Germans are 180 cm tall on average, and people from the British Isles measure about 178 cm, the value corresponds quite well to the source populations. Centrum99 (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see a scientific study showing white men are 5 ft 11 average. I am 6 feet even, and in many cases feel taller than about 70% of the men I see walking down the street in my West coast American city. If I had to guess, I would say most white guys I see are honestly between 5 ft 8 and 5 ft 11, with younger guys maybe averaging 5 ft 10. So I think the data in the articles is accurate. --75.175.66.161 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding average height on a semi-protected article.

{{Edit semi-protected}} 2010 study gives new figures for average height of Finnish (Finland) males and females.

Males: 180,7 cm, measured in 2010 on people born 1983

Females: 167,5 cm, measured in 2010 on people born 1983

Duodecim

2010;126(24):2799-802

Antti Saari, Ulla Sankilampi, Leo Dunkel

http://www.terveysportti.fi/xmedia/duo/duo99227.pdf
Request:I will do it, if you tell me where it is on the document (I don't speak Finnish)--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The data are suspicious. I have results from a nationwide health survey done in 2007 (FINRISK), and it reports 178.4 cm in 434 men aged 25-34 years. I really doubt that even when we take the higher age into account, Finns would grow 2 cm within one decade. I will certainly contact the authors. I think the average 180.7 may concern southwestern Finns, where a local average 180.2 cm was reported in the above mentioned survey. Centrum99 (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done Since there is opposition to this request, please get consensus first, then resubmit another edit request. Thanks! – Ajl^talk 20:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I contacted the authors and they wrote that the data concerned southern Finns - as I expected. There is ca. 3 cm interregional difference within Finland, between the southwest and northern parts of the country. And the surveys even don't include Lapps, I think. Centrum99 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands: 6'0"
Germany: 5'11.5"
Finland: 5'11" 58.138.55.55 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT USE NEWSPAPERS AS SOURCES

I would like to appeal to all users not to use data from newspapers. It devalues the whole page. The self-reported data are worthless as well. As I already said above, I would erase the self-reported data, and the newspaper sources as well. Centrum99 (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use self-reported data, especially since the self-reported data is so hard to believe such as an average height of 6'.5" for young men in the Netherlands. SamanthaG (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a direct measure study showing similar heights, conducted by the EU. The actual reported height was 182.5 cm for males, 170.5 cm for females, which translates to just a hair below 6 feet for the men and about 5'7 for women. However the age range was 15-25, so it's fair to assume that the younger specimens were dragging down the average just a little bit. There is also another survey which shows 184.8 cm for men, but I don't know the measurement method. The EU study might not be available online, at least not freely, the second one is here. I havent been editing this page regularly lately and am not sure why those two studies were removed, but it may be due to a small sample size. —Soap— 22:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

184.8 cm for men sounds hard to believe as an average. SamanthaG (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

In what sense "hard to believe"? No nation has this height except for the Dinarians. Take a holiday to Montenegro and remove yourself from the tourist contaminated areas and into places where you'll be the only outsider, places like the city centres of Podgorica or Nikšić. After 6pm (and up to 2pm) the streets are full of locals, see then whether you'll doubt the height. If you wish to see extremely tall, go to the central towns of Montenegro such as Kolašin, Mojkovac and Žabljak. You may not believe your eyes. You can achieve the same results by heading into Herzegovina but then you'll find the further north you go there, so too the height increases, and if you really want HUGE - get yourself a picture of tall as I have discussed by going into Croatia's Dalmatian coast (again, taking care to avoid tourists who contaminate the scene - so avoid Dubrovnik, shame because they are tall) and head into the hinterland (largely tourist free). In the Croatian hinterland (especially Lika - and over the border into Bosnian Krajina) you will be stunned, speechless at people's size. The finest example is purported to be the small but picturesque town of Drniš where you will no doubt see many of Stojko Vranković's taller friends. Evlekis (Евлекис) 08:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the figures discussed above are for the Netherlands. It's true that Croatia is likely even taller, though. —Soap— 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I may have cross wires then. SamanthaG's figure of 184.8 matches Centrum's source for Dinarians (as you said, including Croatia's population from Dalmatia). I wasn't to know. Evlekis (Евлекис) 12:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Self reported. Ha ha. That's basically about as accurate as people reporting their weight on their drivers license, or guys reporting their genital length in a study. They are going to round to the nearest number they like. Most guys who are 5 ft 11.5 are going to claim they are 6 feet etc. In studies which base themselves on cm or millimeters, self reports cannot be considered accurate. Maybe they are accurate to the nearest inch -- but not cm. --75.175.66.161 (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lyndsay Renae isn't the shortest person ever. Height rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.196.45 (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Germany

Are there any recent studies out there for measured heights for the German population? It seems to be one of the few European countries on the list for which we're still using (unreliable/dubious) self-reported heights. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Enzo Ferrari

Adolf Hitler was 5'7".
Benito Mussolini was 5'9".
Enzo Ferrari was 6'1.5".

58.138.55.55 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daxide, 14 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Average height data for Italy is self-report and not measured!

Daxide (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. GaneshBhakt (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Daxide, 14 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I emailed ISTAT and they told me that the statistics on the average height for italy reported on this page is SELF REPORT, it is NOT measured!

Daxide (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Moreover we can't just change something because of the word of another. Please tell the ISTAT editors to email their reply to info-en-q@wikimedia.org so that it can go directly to the Wikimedia OTRS staff. —Soap— 12:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dinaric alps

since when is this a country? french study on which data are based was made in southern parts of croatia and bosnia and herzegovina which are known for tall people but croatia on average is 176 cm for males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.33.82 (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

this was a well researched and apparently celebrated research that has been continued to the present day. since its not from one country but a few remote towns in eastern europe (around croatia), the data is never very useful at the ethnic level, but probably still useful for single population comparisons. --71.191.154.10 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that the region deserves special status, after all, this is science and not politics. If it is apparent that people in one part of a country are taller than those in another, it needs to be mentioned - a combined overall average of a state means absolutely nothing per se UNLESS it were the case that there really was next to no variation end to end. The British Isles is an example, Scotland top, Ireland bottom, barely 1cm in it and this is not obvious to the eye. To that end, you'll hardly notice a difference with the rest of the English-speaking world (where they have Anglic roots, such as the US and Australia). The 1.78-1.79 mark gives us British Isles (all of it), the US (whites), Australia, Finland, Poland, Latvia and Slovakia (I think I'm right in this but I'm not checking at the moment). Regarding the Balkan regions, "ethnic" would not only be meaningless but impossible as a typical town in the region will have all ethnicities living in it and people in turn are closer to their neighbours than their remote nationals. But if someone wanted a country because they wanted to be political, Montenegro is entirely within the Dinaric Alps and I know from experience that EVERY part of it is HUGE. People realise this yet only go to tourist places, where the very tallest are (central/northern) you barely see tourists. That said, the Dinaric regions where people are tall are as follows: Montenegro, Dalmatia plus the hinterland, Bosnian Krajina, westerm Bosnia, Herzegovina and north-eastern Albania. The people who are tall are the Slavic persons and the Albanians but NOT the Roma who have come to the region in more recent centuries but their height too is on the increase particularly where they have mixed. The only others left are those from outside the Dinaric Alps who have relocated to parts of it (eg. Macedonians now in Montenegro, etc.). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"bone mass" non-sequitur

"Since taller people have more bone mass, they will generally be slightly weaker than shorter people in the same weight class," in the section on wrestling, is a vague and unsupported assertion. It seems self-evident that tall people have more bone mass than short people who weigh less, but it doesn't follow that they have more bone mass than short people who weigh the same. A short wrestler at a weight typical of taller wrestlers may well have an unusually endomorphic body structure, with more skeletal mass than normal for his height. The generalization should be removed, and the statement should either be referenced or given a better physiological basis. 67.171.217.252 (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree everything should be referenced. SamanthaG (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Add Zola in the list of short football (soccer) players

Gianfranco Zola, 1.68m, star of Chelsea and the Italian National team, is another great talent in a small package who is worth mentioning in the football (soccer) section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.134.16 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Switzerland

Edit request from Paul Lauener, 8 August 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a new publication about modern and historic height (average, distribution, trend) of conscripts in Switzerland in Swiss Medical Weekly http://www.smw.ch/content/smw-2011-13238/. Perhaps you could update the information about Switzerland in the table (average 178.2 cm, age 19) and in footnote 63 (replace reference). Thanks a lot!

Paul Lauener (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Occupational success?

Would the "Occupational Success" section not better fit under the article on height discrimination? This section lacks a biological argument and is a cultural issue. As stated in the section, "There are only a few occupations that need taller people." This statement is indicative of a perceived cultural preference, it is not relevant to human height in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelEd (talk • contribs) NigelEd (UTC)

Edit request- B-ron, 29 August 2011

I read that the average height in Montenegro is 6'1.2 in. and the average height in Albania is 6 feet. Can I add this to the list of country average heights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron668 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show your sources for this. —Soap— 03:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[2]

Those figures sound hard to believe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue)

Note that the above message was posted some time ago to something else, by accident the timing changed to make it look posted a few days ago which it wasn't. Anything sourced is fine for the article. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

average human height

Does anyone find it disappointing/interesting that in the article titled "human height" you cannot find the average human height? As well as the sex averages: average height for male and female across the globe? --71.191.154.10 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BenLib, 4 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Exceptional height variation (around 20% deviation from average) within such a population is usually due to gigantism or dwarfism; which are medical conditions due to specific genes or to endocrine abnormalities Gangong, William F. Review of Medical Physiology, Lange Medical 2001, p392-397 BenLib (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Update done. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

When updates are done, please set "answered=yes" as suggested in the template text. No biggie. --Lexein (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-Reported Height

I thought you guys might be interested in this. It's a pretty detailed (and fairly recent) study done on the differences between self-reported and then measured heights and weights of three countries/regions of the world: Italty, the Netherlands, and North America:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/01/20/eurpub.ckp228.full

I'd like everyone to read through it. I found it interested, because currently, the only heights we have for the Netherlands are self-reported. Perhaps, we'll be able to add the measured numbers. I don't know, but I thought this interesting. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversions

Question: Is there any way to set the table so that it will convert from metric to imperial to the nearest quarter inch instread of to the nearest half-inch? A half-inch is quite an impercise conversion. A half-inch is a full 1.5 centimeters. If I remember correctly, we used to get down to quarter inches in conversion on the chart. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2011

Finland's average heights are: male 181 cm, female 167,5 cm (2010). Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihapulla1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I can believe it. I thought the given figure was a bit low - but what you have produced is a Finnish language article and there is no way to verify whether this is reliable; in addition, the sources required here are measurements and clinical reports, not journals! That said, the figure you give is one I believe. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the romanian height?

I don't see in the table my country, Romania. I know that the medium Romanian height is 1.78-1.82 for male and 1.67-1.70 for female. Please add it in the table. (year 2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.9.201 (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

1,78-1,82? Have you any idea how huge the difference is from one to the other. 1,78 makes them semi-tall(ish) like the white Americans, the British and others along that and 1,82 will send them straight into third place behind Dinarians and Dutch, bigger than Czechs and Germans - in other words, giants! Can only be one, or if it's in the middle, we need to know where. There are indeed figures which vary according to count but we are talking 1cm and a bit at most, not all of four! My point is that if you spent a day among a crowd of people whose male average was 1,82 and the next day where it was 1,78, you would without question notice the difference as the 1,82 average will produce giants - people 2,10+ will be noticed regularly but where it's 1,78, even 2,00 is not common. Don't ask how or why, that's just how it goes. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Argentina New Average

I enter in the wikipedia in spanish and i found a new average for argentina, 176,4 cm for mens 164,7 cm for womens, 21, measured, 2007 ^[1]

If somebody can fixed this i will be very thankfull

I couldnt find that anywhere in the source. It seems believable, but it just isn't there. The study is about adolescents and doesn't seem to give any figures other than those for ages 10 through 19. —Soap— 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's actually in one of the graphs and not the text, and only covers people of a specific year of age. --71.191.154.10 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can someone also update China PRC National height average? The average height has skyrocketed due to better economic conditions. Ten years since the last measurement in 2002 is a long time when millions who previously were malnourished now can eat and grow tall.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2008_August_12/ai_n27988145/

Chinese male height should now be 5'8" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.119.0 (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

russia

why there is no russia in the Average height around the world table. i have a book, and there standing that russian people are approximately 1.68.

others are:

Saraneger (tchad) - 1.82 m
Scots - 1.79 m
Scandinavians - 1.75 m
Cheyenne natives - 1.74 m
English people - 1.73 m
Germen - 1.68 m
Russians - 1.68 m
Italians - 1.66 m
French - 1.66 m
Spanish people - 1.62 m
Japanese - 1.58 m
Aymara - 1.57 m
San - 1.43 m
Pygmys - 1.39 m

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Scots were 1.66m, English people were 1.68m, Germans were 1.73m. 58.138.55.55 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide a sufficient citation (e.g. perhaps your book?), go ahead and add it. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about how tall people are.

I'm 6 foot an a half, anyway I consider 5'8" as average. An 6'3" barely normal 6'4"- 6'5" abnormal but not that bad, who cares about being a little beyond 6'3"

6'6" to 6'8" very tall, and 3 inches after that 6'9" to 6'11" is wicked tall but is very rare as well in americans.

6'4" to 6'5" isnt as rare as most people think it is, theres not many that tall but anyway its kind of rare finding it but not as much as most people think, but screw it, and what are the odds of seeing any men around 6 foot 7 inches tall. An around 6'10" you might not see once in your whole life because its very rare.

I'm 6ft which is normal tall k enuff of boring height talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psa123456789 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the average height of people in developed nations is increasing, such that 6 foot, or around 6 foot, seems to becoming a relatively normal height for males in developed nations (still above average, but perhaps not by as much as it would have been 30 years ago, for instance). I've lived in the US and UK and see different people about every other day who seem to be several inches above 6 foot. Also, if you've ever watched national basketball, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people over 6 foot 10. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Radamjackson (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC) the average height for an american male is 5'11

Unthinkable. Evidence? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Argentina

I disagree with the average height of Argentine men which figures here. I'm not talking with sources but as a witness. I measure 1.76, am Argentine, and most of my colleagues and men I see on the streets are as high as me and some of them higher. I'd say the average height in Argentina is around 1.76 - 1.77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.6.110 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Things are not as they seem anywhere. All heights are seemingly low, but how things appear to you and me makes no difference to the scientific research that has gone into producing the calculations. I am 1.84 (measured by doctor late 2008/early 2009), Dinaric Alps males are 185.6 which is hardly anything taller - so I should be (about) average, but am I? How do I feel walking in Podgorica, Bar, Budva, Herceg-Novi, Split, Trebinje, Mostar, Neum, Nevesinje, Dubrovnik, Sinj or Drniš and suddenly pass a group of males every one of whom is over 1.90? The answer is VERY SMALL! Even a lot of women are taller than me there but the average is just 1,71, that's the measurement. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Height for rowing / coxing

I would like to suggest an addition to the rowing section:

"However, it is advantageous for coxswains to be of a small stature, due to the associated low weight. For instance, the Olympic coxswain Mary Whipple is 5'3" and weighs in at 108lbs".

I would edit it myself, but I can't find my login details! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.233.197 (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Green Rows

Regarding the sentence, "Note: Data in green are representative of a large section of the country's adult population.", I think it should be made explicitly clear what ratio of sample size to total population would qualify for the coveted "green row". It's just an extra step we can take to increase clarity among users about whether someone didn't just take a highlighter and mark the rows they found agreeable. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Any takers? Or at least provide an explanation on this Talk page? --81.100.44.233 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If we define "adult" as "over 15" or "over 18", something like "15+" or "18+" is obviously going to cover most or all of the country's adult population. In countries such as India, where the majority of the population is rural, something like "Rural, 17+" is covering most of India's adult population. For countries such as Sweden and Switzerland, something like "20–74" will surely cover most of the adult population of those countries. You could, naturally, calculate an approximate percentage of the adult population covered by the study, and then set a minimum acceptable percentage that would be colored in green. Pristino (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, establishing that a sample adult population size is a large portion of the country's adult population would require comparing that value against a precise threshold, and currently I see no mention anywhere what that threshold is. Guesses founded on very rough empirical observation aren't sufficient. Furthermore, to increase transparency, this threshold should be listed on the article or a citation, and currently this doesn't seem to be the case. Despite these issues, it looks like the green rows have been returned during the transfer of the table to a template page. To account for the possibility that a reliable source is being used but not referenced, a citation request has been added. To account for the alternative possibility that original research was practiced, a relevant note regarding that was also added. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

sexual dimorphism

I am interested in the difference in height between men and women. While there are some statistics in the world chart, I would like to see more info on this subject. Does the difference between them vary- by country, race, or over historical time? I believe it does change with age as women lose more height with age than men- is that documented? Do the taller people vary more or less? Is there anything known about how it changes with other factors, such as nutrition? Thanks in advance for any data on this.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Female Heights

Who came in here and dumped a load of female heights, and where did you find the information? Seems weird that only female heights were added to the new countries added. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

So, all Europeans are tall?

I find the average heights laughable. For example, I don't think many Italian women outside of the modeling and entertainment industry are tall. And not all Arabs/Muslims are short - bin Laden himself was huge!

And Africans being short? Are you trying to say that Europeans are superior to other races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.164.78 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WTF? No, not all Europeans are tall, nor are all Arabs/Muslims short. Where does it even say anything similar to that in the article? There are so many logical fallacies in your comment it's quite astounding tbh. --81.100.44.233 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The leading averages do place Europeans at the top: Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, Former Yugoslavs, Czechs/Slovaks, Baltic nations ALL rank higher than non-Europeans. However, research is incomplete. Africa is renowned for having far fewer states than nations and languages spoken. Across Montenegro, Dalmatia and Herzegovina (key tall areas of Dinaric Alps), it is widely accepted that the average they produce ranks second behind one African nation but nobody seems to know what that nation is!! Some say it is the Dinka but their average has proven on the low side. Of course, if it be the case that the Dinka are geographically divided and those on one side are far greater than those on the other, that can be taken as scientific. Italians are a case in point, their notherners are taller and closer to their Swiss counterparts. Those in the southern half are shorter on average but they collectively compose an Italian figure. To my knowledge, the Arab and Middle-East nations produce shorter averages even though we had Bin Laden at well over 1,90cm and other celebrities famous for their huge height. I don't think it's given anywhere that Europeans are the tallest and yes it is the case that many European nations are short (Bulgarians, Macedonians, Portuguese, Spanish, Albanians NOT from north-east Albania, etc.). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Many Europeans are short, you say and add a list: have you really checked the values in the tables? I doubt you have. Peeky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.202.64 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy, I did say some European nations are on the short side. I live in the UK, they don't seem too tall to me here either given how often I go back to Montenegro and surrounding area. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

To the user who started this section (IP:72.89.164.78), you seem to have some kind of anti-white/ anti-European bias. The averages simply state that certain European groups of people are among the tallest in the world. Nowhere does it state that all Europeans are tall. Furthermore, if you look at the average in the United States, you'll see that the average of white males (5'10 and a half) is higher than the average of black males (5'10), which is consistent with the difference between African and European nations, albeit the difference in the US is much closer, possibly due to racial intermixing, selective enslavement (mostly taller/stronger slaves were bought by the Europeans from Africa), or environmental factors. Just because the studies do not reflect your personal ideas and beliefs should not make you jump to absurd conclusions. ElliotJoyce (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)ElliotJoyce

And also - the user suggests that Europeans overall being that bit taller is a claim that they are superior (see opening remark). Nowhere is this remotely suggested, IMHO humans are equal, BUT if ever there be a "superior" group of people, I say it is those with the shorter nations, their brains AND physical abilities put the "tall" nations to shame. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his remarks were rather strange. But regarding the "shorter" nations, I'm not sure it's fair to say that they exceed the taller nations in intellectual and physical ability. It varies from person to person, but if anything, I would think it would be the opposite, since most inventions and social designs that comprise the modern Western world, which by diffusion and globalization have come to be used around the globe, have originated with Europeans or those from European descent. And as far as physical ability, there is great variation in this area; for example, sub-Saharan Africans tend to be me faster in running events, while Europeans tend to be stronger (all World Strongest Man competitions have been won by Europeans or those of Europeans descent). But then again, these are all just generalizations, and it certainly doesn't mean that any race or group of people is superior overall to another group of people. ElliotJoyce (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)ElliotJoyce

From a scientific perspective, you're absolutely right and sources verify that. My point was similar to yours in that things vary person to person, and that despite differences, humans are still equal and physical strength does not make one man "superior" to the other (as suggested by OP). When I then glorified the shorter nations, I was making that remark purely from a personal viewpoint - my own experiences. I live in the UK where my 1.84 m (6 ft 1⁄2 in) is evidently above average though by no means does it make me huge. Whether it be a work colleague, a person serving me in a store, a mechanic, an estate agent, a bank assistant, a waiter, a policeman or anything, I have 99% of the time found those taller than me to be goofs - thick, credulous, unknowledgeable and you get the impression you can spank his head and expect to hear a hollow clunk! But that is facetious, I would never really mock the wisdom of Stephen Fry who is 6'5". But looking the other way, all of the intelligent conversations I have had and educational communications on all sorts have been with those shorter, often significantly shorter. The last young lad I met who was 6'4" thought the U.S. was in the EU - and he has a white-collar job!!!! But for me you see, it has been the people of the far-east that I have found on a greater intellectual level that us in the west. Naturally much of this has to do with the different philosophies and custom - it definitely doesn't apply to the generations born in the west or those who moved from a young age. I as an invididual have a great deal of experience with giants as I originate from the former Yugoslavia and have links in the Dinaric Alps region where I visit often. Even there, the bigger the more stupid I find, but I can allow them up to 1.95 m (6 ft 5 in) before assigning them "useless morons"!!! But even then, there are exceptions, former Montenegrin president Đukanović is 1,99, speaker Ranko Krivokapić is just over 2,00 and both are very clever and powerful men, but meet the average basketball player and you'll see that outside of his sporting skills, he probably struggles with light switches! :) These, I'll remind you, are my own opinins and should be taken with a grain of salt and I am not suggesting we broach the subject on the article! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

72.89.164.78's questions frankly didn't make any sense. But careful, subsequent posters are also diverging a bit with unsubstantiated opinions, much of which don't relate to the article at all. Remember that this isn't a discussion forum. --Supjet (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it that

how could Nigerians be shorter then Chinese people ? WTF their is something wrong with this ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.38.22 (talk) 05:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --Supjet (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No standard deviations

I couldn't find more than one and, even then, it wasn't clearly stated what the value was and which population it referred to. Surely this variability is an important datum for an article such as this. (He says, having come here to find averages and std.devs to work with. ;o) 92.25.6.48 (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Polynesian natural mythology?

"In 2009 a survey by the University of Hawaii found that both islands had males averaging 1.8034 m (5 ft 11 in) tall, while immigrants descending from both nations equalled that of Dinarians and Dutch at 1.857 m (6 ft 1 in) tall.."

The beginning of a fairy-tale about huge Polynesians? Where is the source? Some Polynesians are indeed tall by European standards, but the highest number that I have ever seen is 179 cm in the Maori. The rest of Polynesian ethnic groups is of moderate stature around 175 cm. I am sorry, but these numbers look entirely fabricated. Centrum99 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, that number would take them straight to the top. And believe me, if they were bigger than Dutch and Dinarians, YOU'D KNOW IT! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Average Height Of Nigerian Men

I found it odd that Nigerian men were measured at 5'4 especially considering that neighboring countries such as Cameroon and Niger recorded average heights considerably taller. I checked the source, and true to my suspicions, the data was compiled via a research paper on diabetes/high-blood pressure in small sample men from one town (Ibadan). This data is also quite old. How does the average height of a (very!) small sample of possibly ill older men, which is also outdated, translate to the whole population of Nigerian men?

I'd rather the reported height be removed and Nigeria not be listed at all, that is if no reliable sources are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readerng (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

All the sports crap should go in a separate article

The sports part is taking a very important part of the article, and its importance is trivial compared to the rest of the article. A new page should be created. Thanks--Fauban 16:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Average height as a measure of living standard is lagging indicator

So for example, the average height of 17-18 year old south koreans in 2011 would be a measure of the living standard of south korea in the 1990s.72.53.146.220 (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are sports half of this page?

Almost every Sport more height is an advantage. Why is half of this page about sports? A 'most sports height is an advantage' would be just as sufficient — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.157.92 (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just moved all that crap into a separate article. Cheers!--Fauban 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well done. For clarity, the new title is Height in sports (linked to in this article). Best is to add a template at the top of both talk pages describing this move, to preserve the edit history, see WP:SPLIT. Gap9551 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

please add section on height in prehistorical times, geological time, and early history

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.117.2.51 (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, Finland (outdated data)

A 2010 study made by Leo Dunkel, Ulla Sankilampi and Antti Saari

On the first page there reads "Suurimmat pituuserot nykyisiin kasvukäyriin ilmenevät murrosiän nopean kasvun aikana (tytöillä +2,8 cm ja pojilla +5,6 cm). Aikuispituus on lisääntynyt naisilla 1,9 cm (167,5 cm) ja miehillä 1,8 cm (180,7 cm)." loosely translated to "The greatest height differences to the modern growth curves appear as a rapid growth during the puberty (on girls +2,8 cm and on boys +5,6 cm). The adult heights has increased on women 1,9 cm (167,5 cm) and on men 1,8 cm (180,7 cm)."

This has been once tried to add there but being reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_height/Archive_6#Adding_average_height_on_a_semi-protected_article. on basis that it's about the South Finland (Espoo). Actually this is a false statement and the ones who made the study took that in account also. There reads "Uudistustyössä keräsimme Espoon perusterveydenhuollosta väestöpohjaisen kasvuaineiston, joka sisältää 75 810 lapsen 561 392 mittaustietoa. Lapset ovat syntyneet vuosina 1983–2008 ja edustavat perimältään koko Suomen väestöä, sillä Espoon väestö on koko Suomesta tapahtuneen muuttoliikkeen myötä lähes 11-kertaistunut kuuden viime vuosikymmenen aikana (Espoon tilastollinen vuosikirja 2008)." loosely translated to "In the reformation work we collected the population based growth data from the Espoo healthcare that includes 75 810 children's 561 392 measurement information. The children are born in years 1983-2008 and represent the whole Finnish population as the population of Espoo has increased by 11 times during the last six decades because of the internal migration from all-over Finland (Espoo's statistical year book 2008)." (Meaning the modern citizens of Espoo represent the whole Finnish heritage). --88.114.99.222 (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad references and bias

I really don't know what to say. There's so much bias in the article. Bad references. Personal opinions. Statistics that cannot be backed up. The list goes on.

It's like everyone is trying to make the men or women of their country of origin taller than they really are because that somehow makes them taller or something.

The heights keep getting edited back and forth. The differences are immense - like Lithuanian men growing from 173 cm to 181 cm now in only a few months. I mean what is going on? I'm about 180 cm (5 ft 11 in), and I've been to Lithuania (Vilnius, Šiauliai, Kaunas and so on) and people there are WAY shorter than me. I rarely saw someone who was taller than me or above 6 ft. My German friend who was with me in Lithuania is 190 cm ( 6 ft 3 in) and I didn't see one Lithuanian man or woman that was taller than him, and we walked around everywhere. Maybe we should have visited the basketball team? But their average height is hardly representative.

I'd estimate the average height for men in Lithuania to be between 170 and 175, but I'm only guessing here.

Bennyman (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

No chance are they 1,70-1,75. I find it hard to believe that you could have kept it on your mind the entire time - none taller than your German friend, but there are most definitely tall Lithuanians and plenty of them. I can also assure you that Vilnius has no shortage in numbers. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics?

"The suspected reason for their great stature is due to a long practices of eugenics by selecting tall strong warriors as mates"

Eugenics? How is this not just sexual selection, which happens constantly, everywhere, and which we're all the end product of? Air (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexual selection is a type of natural selection. Eugenics is a type of artificial selection. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, and I'm arguing that 'selecting tall warriors as mates' is an example of sexual selection, not eugenics. --Air (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Average height in Canada

should be 5'10" for men [3]. How does one edit that height chart? 24.114.22.96 (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Click edit and then type. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Table/Introduction to tables if you have difficulty with the syntax.— James Estevez (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Average height chart?

So, one can notice a pattern. Where much of the entire population's height is recorded, the height is in line with normal human average maximums 5'9 or 5'10. Where the measurement is not a large sample of the population, or is self reported, we've got the giants of 6 ft, 6ft 1. Uhm, might be more accurate to leave Dinaric Alps and Denmark out of the equation, until more reliable measurements are taken. Also, I'd question whether Dinaric Alps are a measurable subgroup, its not a country, but rather a geographically localized region.

Why can't the average height chart around the world can't be changed or edited? Shalom11111 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Error for Philippines average heights

I don't know the correct figures but 2' and 1' 8" is absurd. Calydon (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Average American Heights

Surprise that no one has done this yet, but the upated average heights for the United States were released by the Centers of Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics some time ago (October 2012). The numbers currently in the this page's chart cover the time period of 2003-2006. The current report covers the time period of 2007-2010:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm

The numbers aren't hugely different from the 2003-2006 report or anything, but that the data is more current should be enough to replace the old data. I don't have the time, so whoever's interested can change them when they get the time. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, in inches the difference does not seem to be so great but in cm it does. According to this source it is 1.75 for men and 1.60 for women, which is clearly lower than the figures given. Therefore, or these figures are not accurate or we may have the interesting and exceptional situation for rich countries that height is decreasing in the US.

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that it's more the decreased sample size, as the time frame between the two reports is too small a difference for such decreases to be measured. Plus, the average for 20 year olds (all combined races) is nearly identical between the two reports. Anyway, not really here to discuss that, rather, for someone to add the new information when they get the time (while keeping the existing categories, of course). --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it has also to do with the inch to cm conversion. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Both reports give the numbers in both inches and centimeters, so it has nothing whatsoever to do with incorrect conversions. Again, it's most likely the substantial decrease in sample size. Anyway, are you interested in changing the data? I probably should have put this on the talk page of the actual template, now that I'm thinking about it. I mean, there is nothing really to debate, it's really just about whether someone has the will and time to do this. Maybe I'll do it, soon. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I like to participate in the talk pages but do not like to make changes myself. I got burnt out in the past. Anyway, the American case is interesting. Here a few links:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3293191

From there I cut and pasted this part:

"The study, conducted by the University of Munich and Princeton University, found that the United States had the shortest population in the industrialized world, and the reason may have to do with the way people live".

In my opinion that statement is an exaggeration, but there seems to be something go ing on in the US.

Stalin of average height

While Lenin was a very small man, Stalin was actually average for that time. According to his mug shot in russian (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Stalin%27s_Mug_Shot.jpg) he was 174 cm. Also Hitler was about 174 cm (average) and Stalin was said to be appr. the same height by those who met them both. So better change. This "shortness-propaganda" is just stupid, someone being of average height doesn't make him less a killer, or you think so? -- --Objectus (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Welsh height statistics are self-reported, not measured

I can't seem to edit the table. Can someone please correct the statistics for UK - Wales? The reference cited is the 2009 Welsh Health Survey. If you read the relevant sections you will see that the numbers given are self-reported, not measured. This should be corrected in the table. I suspect some of the other numbers in this table are also mislabelled as 'Measured.' Perhaps I will check some more when I have time. Also there is a more recent Welsh Health Survey from which to get numbers. I checked the 2011 survey and the numbers in it are also self-reported and also exactly the same so perhaps there is no point updating the reference. But please do change to 'Self-reported'

---Dcook22 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I have figured out how to edit the table and UK - Wales is now corrected but I suspect others are still suffering from the same mislabelling. --Dcook22 (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

News about height history in Europe

There's some good information here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855 I provide it here so that it might be incorporated more promptly than if I were to do it myself. -- ke4roh (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful data

In Tibet, the khampas are known for their great height. Khampa males are on average 180 cm tall (5' 10).[19

I urge the author of this addition to quote the passage of the book, from which this information was taken. Was it based on actual measurement, or only on some anecdotal report of Baron Munchhausen? I have very high doubts about the credibility of this value - similarly like about all those fairy stories about 2-meter tall Maasai (which are completely fabricated).

I would also like to add that the data on Azerbaijan and Norway are self-reported. While this may not be perfectly clear from the report of the Azerbaijani statistical committee, in the case of Norway, it is explicitly listed in the text, so the author of this misinformation must have probably been drunked. Centrum99 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Romania is missing

There isn't even a row for Romania. It's a European country that's been around for a while and a pretty big one, seems like an egregious omission. Please add data on it or at least a blank row (I tried to but I could not figure out how to use the template). Thanks! 169.229.110.12 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Average Human Height Source inconsistency for share of population Australia

At the moment the article states that the "Share of pop. over 15 covered" in Australia is 94.7%. A quick look at the source tell me that their number is based on 10,124 records which is no where close to 94.7% of Australia's population.

Have I misunderstood something or are the figures in the article incorrect? Zmeos (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Romania

Where's Romania? It's not even listed in the table... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.86.74 (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is height being expressed in metres?

Centimetres is common in countries that use the metric system. The use of metres must be the work of those less accustomed to its use.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources: the UK's NHS,^[2] Australian Bureau of Statistics,^[3] New Zealand Government^[4], Government of Canada^[5], etc.

^ http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0325-00752005000400007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |autor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx
^ http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13
^ http://www.passports.govt.nz/Completing-your-application---converting-your-height
^ http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/weights-poids/guide-ld-adult/bmi_chart-graph_imc-eng.php

Thomas T. Samaras (2007). Human Body Size and the Laws of Scaling: Physiological, Performance, Growth, Longevity and Ecological Ramifications. USA: Nova Science Publishers.
Phyllis B. Eveleth, James M. Tanner (1990). Worldwide Variation in Human Growth. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leslie Aiello, Christopher Dean (1990). An Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy. USA: Academic Press.
Roderick Floud, Annabel Gregory, Kenneth Wachter (1990). Height, Health and History: Nutritional Status in the United Kingdom, 1750-1980. UK: Cambridge University Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Bruce J Chalmer (1987). Understanding Statistics. USA: CRC Press.
Oxford Textbook of Medicine. UK: Oxford University Press. 2003.
Jerrold T. Bushberg, J. Anthony Seibert, Edwin M. Leidholdt, John M. Boone (2012). The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
S. P. Singh, Promila Mehta (2009). Human Body Measurements: Concepts and Applications. India: PHI Learning Private.
Kault, David (2003). Statistics with Common Sense. USA: Greenwood.
Richard H. Steckel, Roderick Floud (2008). Health and Welfare during Industrialization. USA: University of Chicago Press.
Carey, Gregory (2003). Human Genetics for the Social Sciences. USA: Sage Publications.
Helander, Martin (2006). A Guide to Human Factors and Ergonomics. USA: CRC Press.
Smith, Malco;m (2003). Human Biology and History. UK: Taylor & Francis.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree cm used more frequently than m. Lesion (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal experience says cm is best and most commonly used, sourcing is good but shouldn't be necessary, I think we have agreement for consensus here, for the use on this page. CFCF (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Great. Unfortunately Template:Height is used frequently here, and bizarrely allows for metres only. Just waiting for an admin to address this.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You should wait until consensus is reached on Wikipedia before implementing this change. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit to the lead. This should be a summary of the article, not a place for uncited assertions. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think enough citations were provided above, why not use one or more of those. Lesion (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

They are just examples which may support the assertion, but do not directly state it. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reinstated wording that, as you say, is well supported by high-quality, published, academic sources. We look forward to you presenting sources that dispute it.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that states "Human height is usually measured in centimetres when using the metric system" ? If not, then you are not compliant with WP:SYN, which is a Wikipedia policy. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

p.s. According to this article the standard S.I. unit for measuring length is the metre. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This article states that the "centimetre–gram–second system" has been replaced by the "MKS system, based on meter, kilogram, and second". -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's try sticking to the original question. It is clear from the various references provided (and personal experience of others commenting) that cm are the usual metric measure of human stature. It is neither necessary nor was it first proposed proposed to articulate that fact in the article (which would call for the source you're asking for), but rather to use that observation to inform the WP style. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In that case, the assertion added recently to the lead paragraph should be removed. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have found an enormous amount of evidently correct but unsourced information on Wikipedia. Sometimes I want a reference for it (and leave a note to that effect), sometimes I don't care, sometimes I dig up the reference myself and put it in the article, and sometimes I remove it. It seems that we have determined cm to be the usual units of measure, but have not proven that. It would be acceptable to me to put that sentence in, followed by ^{[citation needed]}. Does the sentence add value to the article? What's the harm in misleading people if we are mistaken? What are the odds we are mistaken? It's not so much about following the rules as it is about providing a valuable resource for people. WP:NOTLAW. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, CFCF, alas how wrong you were... who'd have thought, right? Ideally, WP:Leads should not be referenced, as they take their content from the article's body, which is. In this case the article's body clearly supports its lead. I note that most of the few instances in which metres crop up have "citation needed" tags.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see what you are getting at. I was expressing that we should have human heights expressed in centimeters, not in meters. I did not mean to comment the sentence in the lead, which of course needs reference somewhere in the bulk of the text. I will admit I hadn't read the text before.CFCF (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just the "...sourcing is good but shouldn't be necessary, I think we have agreement for consensus here..." bit.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A closely related [[request for comment is now taking place.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Table readability

The height by age tables are really hard to read. The grid lines are extremely thin and faint, even at 2000px, and the height grid lines are separated by increments of 20cm. Could someone edit the svg file to make the grid lines darker and clearer, and maybe add some fainter 5cm grid lines as well? -- Gordon Ecker, WikiSloth (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How come Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Greek and Turkish men have such high average? What is going on?

How come peoples from Mediterranean Europe (Latin Europe and Southern Europe in general) reach nearly as high average as Slavic or Germanic peoples? This is just impossible. I remember when Portugal and Spain had 1.695 and 1.71 as male average, and this was in 2011. How come this "changed" in not even 4 years? I feel someone is trying to boost up the average giving some fake sources. Everyone knows that an average Spanish, Portuguese or Italian guy is much shorter than an average Serb, Pole, or Czech. Slavs, especially the South-Slavs, are some of the tallest ethnicities on earth, and so, how come Spaniards and other southern-Europeans reach this average? How come some fake data is provided and accepted by Wikipedia? Please, take a closer look to it. I know "heightism" is popular and that it's a "new racism" (it actually is a form of racism while human height is a racial feature), but all in all, you have to accept some differences between the human ethnicities. Accept means NOT DENY THEM. For instance the Polish average is 1.78m - Poles are officially one of the tallest nations in Europe, but from the table it turns out like Poles were not so tall, while Portuguese people reach their average with their "1.76" which was "updated" from 1.695. This is pathetic. What is more, the Brazilian average was 1.69 or 1.70 in 2012, and now i see it is "updated" to a higher number! How come an average Brazilian is nearly as tall as an average Slavic person or the same height as a person from the UK? Do people grow so fast??? This whole thing smells like a fake data to me. I need to verify the sources given, I need to know who are the authors of these edits, and I will do it in the near future. Yatzhek (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexican height and references changed

The following reference has been eliminated from the table because it does not specify which age group or sex, nor the zones of study.

http://gaceta.udg.mx/Hemeroteca/paginas/313/G313-6.pdf

Suboptimal display method for average national height across years

The name country can appear multiple times; there are two immediately conceivable solutions:

1. color-coded multi-line graph

2. use years as columns so that each nation/region has year-to-year height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.65 (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Portugal - Seriously?

Concerning Portugal: Whoever did this paper should check their sources for information on Portugal. Since they used a small study concerning 20 individuals in a college class room to define the general height of all male and female individuals in Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.148.118 (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Source for Spain wrong.

The source for Spain and 1,78 for adult males aged 21 taken in 2002 is here: http://elpais.com/diario/2002/06/18/salud/1024351204_850215.html

The one in the table is wrong. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What is the "true" average in Germany

Hi. There are two different datas for the same study One deals with regions and the other only include cities. Does the first one exclude the cities?I don't get why you have such a difference between both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.83.155.55 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Old wives' gossip. This does not belong to a serious article

In Tibet, the khampas are known for their great height. Khampa males are on average 180 cm tall (5 ft 11 in).[24]

People from South Asia belong to the very smallest in the world. The average height of men in Nepal is 163.0 cm (according to the Nepal STEPS survey 2012-13) http://www.who.int/chp/steps/Nepal_2012-13_STEPSreport.pdf (page XXXII)

and the average height of 18-year old boys from Lhasa was 169.1 cm in 2010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25189608

The self-reported data should be deleted as well.

I have also repeatedly pointed to the inaccuracy of the information concerning the Dinaric Alps. The measured height in 17-year olds was 184.6 cm. The authors added +1 cm to compensate the unfinished growth.

Centrum99 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

True height claiming

Hello folks. A human is a full inch taller in the morning than in the evening. What kind of height is a human's true height to claim? The morning height or evening height? It would be fantastic if someone knows that because after that, I will add this height change mark to the article. Opo Chano (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A new article of "Average height around the world"?

I just feel like this article is swallowed by the section "Average height around the world". This section is using more than half of the page and still growing. Maybe we had better create a new main article about "Average height around the world"? JordanZaxxon (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorting error needs to be fixed

When you sort the table by average height a sorting error becomes obvious. Numbers like 180 cm for Austria, 179 cm (for Austria again) and 179 cm for Ireland appear before larger numbers that have a decimal place. To fix this someone should add a '.0' after all the numbers without a decimal point. See Austria (twice), Ireland, Germany, New Zealand, Spain, France, Greece (twice, Ireland (again), Israel, New Zealand (twice more). You get the point. Lots of these countries appear out of order because their cm numbers appear without a decimal place. I would fix it myself but I can't see where to edit the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcook22 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Well.. I think it's not accurate to describe 180.0cm when a source says 180cm. Because 180.0cm ranges from 179.950cm to 180.049cm, whereas 180cm ranges from 179.500cm to 180.499cm. They are not exactly the same. JordanZaxxon (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I added decimal places partially which I could confirm from sources. It should be better than before. JordanZaxxon (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Apples to oranges

It is misleading to use different age and social groups. For example some countries height is based on college students which are always taller than other age and social groups - they are younger which makes them taller and students are even more tall because they are coming from richer families which means better diet and so on.

In terms of statistical accuracy, perhaps half of the data on this list are not credible enough. Self-reported height, estimated height, too small sample size to represent total population, not randomly sampled data, not properly measured by medical staffs, miscalculated data etc... But at least we can recognize those issues via sample population and methodology info. So as long as showing such information and notes of caution (which the current article already has), they are alright to be listed here. JordanZaxxon (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

'==Canada INFLATED height and US overstated average height for both men and women==:'

They probably took a sample of 30 people or 200 people or just a sample of 60 people in 2014 or 2015 who are taller than usual to arrive at average height in Canada and this other country, the United States.

This chart in Wikipedia is misleading and does not include over 90% of the population in Canada, the US or in Italy. You cannot measure a sample of 20 people that are 18 years old that are taller than normal. You are missing the rest of the population 20 years to 90 years old and the results would be very different for height and would be 2 inches less for each respective gender in Italy. Please correct the stats from Italy to use the numbers from 2-3 years ago which were less inaccurate than. You cannot write "18 to 85" when you count 2 people for example that are 60 years old and everybody else is 18 yrs of age in your sample of only 20 people.

The average height for men in the United States is 5 ft.8" and this statistic of 5 ft. 9" (175 cm) is inflated and is not correct. 5 ft.9.5 is too much and not reasonable for the "median height" even though men are supposed to be taller than women. Men are supposed to be significantly taller than women on average. The average height for men in Canada is 5 ft.8" (referring to the median, not tall, not short, taller than many).

Men may be getting heavier overall or more overweight men as well in Canada and in the United States. If average height is one inch more, then the average WEIGHT of caucasian women and African Americans is getting heavier and the rate of caucasian and black women in the US that are overweight and/or obese would be more.

The average height for women in Canada should be 5 ft.3 (161 cm) and it is not 5 ft.4", NOT 5 ft.4.5"(162.5 cm)which is one inch overstated and is already quite tall.

As long as a person is a decent height, their height is different from what they look like. You could have a group of 5 different females, and each or some of those women who are a decent (not tall, not short, taller than many) and average height as females may have a more beautiful figure and face than a few other women who are taller but some of the taller girls may look ugly and it depends on the person.

The proof is that on any given day if you walk around outside in a city in Canada, you will see many Canadian men who are 5 ft.6" or many men in Canada that are more than 4 inches LESS than average height for men which should be 5 ft.8" and which is a decent height for men. The correct average height for men is 5 ft.8" which is not tall, not short, taller than many.

The proof is that it is inflated is that on any given day if you walk around outside for example, in a city in Canada, you will see many Caucasian women who are 4 ft.11"(149 cm) or 4 ft.8"". If you go around outside to the right places, you will see quite a lot of other women in Canada that are 4 ft.10 "(147 cm) who complain about their height. The women in Canada who are 4 ft.10"or 4 ft. 9" are more than 4 inches less than average height for women (5 ft.3/ 5 ft 4" 162 cm).

Hispanic/Latino women overstated/inflated height in the United States:

The average height for Hispanic/Latino men in the United States is 5 ft.6.5" and this statistic of 5 ft. 7.5 (171.1 cm) is inflated and is not correct.

The average height for Hispanic/Latino women in the US should be 5 ft.1.5 (156 cm) and it is not 5 ft.2.5", (158.5 cm)which is one inch overstated for Hispanic/Latino women

That average amount is the sum of i.e. all of their male heights divided by the total amount of numbers in the set, or the sum of all of their female heights divided by the total amount of numbers in the set, then that is the amount.

This chart is not including or even missing several countries in South America where the average height for women is 4 ft.6” (139 cm?) and 5 ft 4.5“ for men in South America.. This chart does not include several countries in Africa where the average height for women is 4 ft.8” .

It was 2-3 years ago and 2 years ago (before 2009 and between 2015)was not that long when Wikipedia used to have more accurate human heights for different countries. Suddenly in 2014 and 2015, the statistics for Canada, United States and Portugal have been rigged by 1-2 inches -have jumped to unrealistic proportions!

Average human height is slowly increasing and average human height is NOT increasing that fast. Based on past history, It takes at least 20 years for a change of 2 big inches and 15 years at the least!

France inflated height in France, then another country, Italy:

The average height for women in France should be 5 ft.3 (161 cm) and it is not NOT 5 ft.4.5"(162.5 cm) which is one inch overstated and is already quite tall.

The average height for men in the France is 5 ft.8" and this statistic of 5 ft. 9" (175 cm) is inflated and is not correct. 5 ft.9 is too much and is not representative of men in France.

Male average height is actually 5 ft.7.5 in Italy and for women, it is 5 ft.3.5”(161 cm) and NOT 5 ft.4.5, NOT 5 ft.6”.

In those European countries, and other continents for that column, you cannot measure people who are 21 years of age or 18 years of age which does not account for people between 25-40, 40 to 55 or 56 to 65, etc 85 years etc.

Sweden women inflated height by 1-2 inches and men overstated in Sweden:

The average height for women in Sweden is actually 5 ft.4.5 (163 cm) and it is not NOT 5 ft.5"(164.6 cm) which is one inch overstated, 5 ft.5 heightwise is a lot, is not is not reasonable for the median amount and is already quite tall.

The average height for men in Sweden should be 5 ft.9" and this statistic of 5 ft. `0" (177.9 cm) is inflated and is not correct. 5 ft.10 is too much and is not representative of men in Sweden even though it is 1-2 inches more than some other European countries.

Belgium women overstated height and men overstated in Belgium:

Female average height in Belgium should be 5 ft.4 (162 cm) and it is not NOT 5 ft.6"(168 cm) which is one inch overstated and is already tall for women.

The average height for men in the Belgium is 5 ft.9.5" “which is more than quite tall. This statistic of 5 ft. 10.5" (178.6 cm) is overstated and is not correct. 5 ft.10.5 is too much and is not representative of the median height in Belgium.

An average Southern European male nearly as tall as a Slavic male?

My question is - why are Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Turkish males listed s being nearly the same height as Slavic males, or equal to English males? It's impossible! Here in Poland we recognize the Southern Europeans not only by their skin tone (olive skin is also met among some Poles) but mostly by their relatively short stature. The average Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, or Turkish male is around 167-170cm, not taller. So the question is, where did you take this data from? 192.162.150.105 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Though I cannot answer your first question, you can check referred original data sources which are shown on the bottom of this article.

JordanZaxxon (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Slavic male is a simplification: Russians or Poles are on the average, even short side. It is the South Slavs, from former Yugoslavia that are the tallest in Europe. Johny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:88E9:CACD:A4EB:7453 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Dinaric Alps

How can we take this seriously, these being the results based on a sample of 17 individuals, and — to make it worse — "Authors added +1 cm to the height mean of the male sample to compensate unfinished growth". How scientific is that? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually I also thought this data was somehow odd, because none of countries composing Dinaric Alps reaches this average height. But I couldn't read the full text and I was too lazy to go to a library just to read this paper. Was the data really calculated from only 17 subjects? If so, I may add this info on its sample population cell.JordanZaxxon (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Portugal

I share the sentiment of another editor on this post regarding the height for Portuguese people. Of the four heights in the table, only one is based on "measured" results. There is only one source, the second one quotes the first one. That source is a study on obesity in children between 10 and 18. I understand that to calculate obesity one has to take height into the equation, but nowhere is the document is the actual height of the subjects mentioned. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was me who added the measured average Portuguese height. I judged this listed height reasonably fine because of the following 3 reasons.

1.The secondly cited research paper "The role of nutrition and genetics as key determinants of the positive height trend" has been commonly used on this page and it can satisfy the minimum standard of reliable source. Therefore, the Portuguese average height "173.9cm" mentioned on this paper is eligible to be listed on this wiki article.

2.However, the paper above doesn't say whether this height is measured or self-reported (or estimated). So I also mentioned the original source "Prevalence of overweight and obesity among Portuguese youth" which provided this data according to the above mentioned paper. This obesity paper itself doesn't mention the average height indeed, however it's not special that one researcher asks other researcher who wrote other research paper to provide raw data for his/er own work. In this case, the height data just comes from the raw data of the first paper to calculate BMI (and they were measured as the paper says "Height was measured to the nearest mm in bare or stocking feet with the adolescents standing upright against a Holtain portable stadiometer."). So listing this obesity paper proves 173.9cm is "measured" height but not self-reported or estimated one, which is unclear on the height comparison paper.

3. Since the data comes from the obesity paper, I thought it is a manner to list it as the first reference.

If I am wrong, plese correct me. JordanZaxxon (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Human height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/growthcharts/training/modules/module1/text/page6bmetric.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070810003347/http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf to http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2006/summer/sum06-skeleton.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kurabe.net/average_height/%7D%7D

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Height and occupational success

I think we could add here also Napoleon and Putin to the list, not just 20. century persons, but more wider aspect. --PetarM (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Human height. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of average is

50% of the people are taller than the average height and the other 50% is shorter. It is sad; as a 6'1 guy I'm now considered a midget in Herzegovina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.78.46 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not the meaning of average. In a perfect system 50% of the population is above and below the average. What you are describing is the median not the average. ~ GB fan 13:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Galton-height-regress.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia the tallest average

The Bosnian study is from a university where they measured university students...you would get similar results if they measured university students from another former Yugoslav country or a Scandinavian country.

It doesnt represent the average for the entire population...with that said its pretty obvious from most studies that the tallest people on average are from former Yugoslavia (South Slavs especially Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, Serbs) and Scandinavians (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes) and the Dutch.

Genetics play a role but also diet during childhood and activities e.g. sports that add to your height handball, basketball, volleyball, swimming, are popular activities for children in these areas.

I don't know who wrote this and when. I myself am from Mostar in Herzegovina and I am 193cm tall! :))))))) I have two brothers and both are taller than me despite me being the one in the middle. I have a sister who stands at 181cm, and my wife from Montenegro is only 170cm but our children have surpassed her. My eldest boy born 2001 is now 195cm, and may yet grow ;) - but this is sample-based anecdote which I am joking about. But so you know that university in the former Yugoslavia does not mean what it does in much of the developed world. The vast majority of gymnasium graduates go to university even though most know they stand no chance of working within the field of their chosen subjects. It's whom you know, not what you know in those parts. But then the qualifications mean precious little outside the respective countries except for the universities of Belgrade and Zagreb. Those two - although not like Oxford or Harvard - are at least recognised around the world. Banja Luka is not. So the count is not quite the sample bias as one might expect. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Three Topics For Deletions & Edits

As there is disagreement with proposals of mine for deletion by QueerEcofeminist, I would like to open a discussion here as to elaborate on my reasoning for why.

1. The section "A particular genetic profile in men called Y haplotype I-M170 is correlated with height. Ecological data shows that as the frequency of this genetic profile increases in the population, the average male height in a country also increases" in the second paragraph of the article. This is due to two reasons. The first being a lack of citation applied to this. The second being that, upon examining the article cited, one can find a link to a study that claims to justify this. However, this study merely reports upon a graph without giving citations for haplotype frequencies nor height information. As they don't cite where it's from, I did some digging to find Greasgruber 2014 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25190282/), which is by the same authors and appears to be the source, which has a flawed methodology behind it. This study is neither a meta analysis nor literature review on haplotype I-M170 frequencies in Europe, yet it merely aggregated various regional and country estimates for it, which consisted of of highly varying sample size (from 65 to several thousand), without clear criteria or indication that these results are remotely generalizeable. As such, and seeing as it has not been independently replicated, this should not be confidently displayed upon Wikipedia. Further, the citation in that article is much more tentative, only suggesting a rough correlation and not a firm link, as opposed to the language in this citation. As such, I propose it be removed unless more accurate studies on the subject can illuminate on the relationship.

2. The line "Height is a sexually dimorphic trait in humans" in the 6th paragraph of the article. This line is misleading as sexual dimorphism implies a trait is completely distinct across sex and evolves in a strictly dependent manner based on that with minimal overlap, as opposed to sexually based evolution. As height clearly is not distinct by sex but rather has substantial overlap, I propose this be rephrased to "Height varies, on average, by sex in humans."

3. The lines "Men from Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Netherlands, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro have the tallest average height.[88][89] Data suggests that Herzegovinians have the genetic potential to be more than two inches taller than the Dutch. In the Netherlands, about 35% of men have the genetic profile Y haplogroup I-M170, but in Herzegovina, the frequency is over 70%. Extrapolating the genetic trend line suggests that the average Herzegovinian man could possibly be as tall as 190 cm (nearly 6′ 3″). Many Herzegovinians do not achieve this potential due to poverty (citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina were 1.9 cm taller if both of their parents went to university, which is considered as a wealth indicator), may be largely to blame for the shorter average stature of Muslim Herzegovinians.[90]

Dinka people are sometimes noted for their height. With the Tutsi of Rwanda, they are believed to be the tallest people in Africa.[91] Roberts and Bainbridge reported the average height of 182.6 cm (5 ft 11.9 in) in a sample of 52 Dinka Agaar and 181.3 cm (5 ft 11.4 in) in 227 Dinka Ruweng measured in 1953–1954.[92] Other studies of comparative historical height data and nutrition place the Dinka as the tallest people in the world" in the section on average height around the world. I have several reasons behind this.

First and foremost, this is in the improper section. The area in which it is located discusses methodological flaws and considerations when viewing international differences in height, and is not discussing these differences in of themselves. Second, there are issues in both of these paragraphs in how to interpret them in this context. As variation in height worldwide is, with the exception of Central African Forager groups, discussed in terms of nations on this cite and among the scientific community, the reporting of specific ethnic groups remains problematic in that regard. The former paragraph may claim to do so, however it only provides citation for the claim of Bosnia & Herzegovina; the other ones are left uncited, however the claim for The Netherlands is true as will be discussed briefly.

The third and fourth critiques are specific to each paragraph, and I will discuss them in brief. For the third paragraph, this study in which its citation is based on suffers from numerous flaws that prohibits firm conclusion in the article. While it claims to be representative, it is only based on 17-20 year old schoolchildren in Bosnia & Herzegovina. It did not randomize its data, and it did not properly detail its procedure for ensuring representativeness beyond weighing the schools by county in proportion to population. As such, it cannot be said to be properly nationally representative, as it may suffer from bias in age, demographics (e.g. by only sampling schoolchildren it may have somehow been upwardly biased), or other issues owing to its sampling procedure. As it did not standardize its claims by age in comparison to other studies, it cannot be said to be comparable. As such, and as this study claims that Bosnia & Herznegovina is the tallest nation, due to its methodological flaws, it cannot be said to contradict the current consensus that The Netherlands is the tallest nation. (https://www.nature.com/articles/pr2012189)

In addition, its usage of extrapolation from haplotypes is inappropriate. Haplotypes are merely indications of allele groupings which inherit together, and they are not causative agents in of themselves. However, the article and the cited paper both seem to imply that they are, which is heavily misleading. They may, of course, be a marker for these as they are inherited, however they are at best only a weak proxy. In addition, this study suffers from the numerous methodological flaws cited above in the proposal for deleting Haplotype I-M170, and as such is not warranted in its conclusions. In addition, as the correlation observed is imperfect, its extrapolation of a proposed 'genetic height' is thus flawed and based on a simplistic causative mechanism that contradicts the current consensus among genetics researchers that, even with a polygenic score, we cannot predict one's height completely accurately.

The fourth critique ties to the Dinka article. Specifically, its claims are unwarranted based on the citations. First, the citation to the Tutsi people is based on one article hosted on a university website and not an anthropometric survey, of which I could not locate any on the topic. Second, the citation of Dinka height is to a 50 year old nonrepresentative overview of 52 members of the Dinka ethnic group with no information on sampling procedure, that utilizes a method of deriving height from photographs that is not clearly indicated to have wide acceptance among modern height researchers. As such, this is inadequate evidence for such a broad claim. The latter two citations are not to studies, but rather both circle back to one graph in Eveleth & Tanner that merely indicates what is often said to be the height of the groups, not what is widely accepted based on the anthropometric literature. I could not locate any independent anthropometric surveys that could validate the claim of Dinka height, beyond one survey of members of a refugee camp in 1995 which puts their height at 5'9 (https://europepmc.org/article/med/8674486). While this survey does not support the claim of the Dinka being the tallest people on the planet, it also is based on a nonrepresentative sample, and as such cannot be said to generalize to the whole Dinka population.

As such, I propose this section be deleted owing to being in the improper section, inadequate evidence, and poor citation quality. I am free to discuss any inaccuracies with the reasoning I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatIsAPoggers (talk • contribs) 04:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources (medicine)

Most of the article is WP:BMI. The sources used are not WP:MEDRS. Based on this, most of the article should really be deleted and then rewritten. As I'm a new editor, I won't just delete most of the article. If you're an experienced editor, WP:DOIT. --Isabela31 (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposing new structure

Based on WP:BMI and some vital signs articles, I'd like to propose that the article be restructured using the following sections:

Classification, normal and abnormal values
Causes
Measurement
Disorders of stature
Epidemiology
History
Society and culture
Research directions
Special populations
Other animals

Current "Determinants of growth and height" can go into Causes. Current "Measurement" and "Average height around the world" into Measurement. Current "History of human height" into History. The non-medical aspects of current "Role of an individual's height" into Society and culture. (Where to put the medical aspects of "Role of an individual's height"?) --Isabela31 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced sections

I am removing 2 sections that were marked as unreferenced since 2014. --Isabela31 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for incorrectly reverting your edit. You were correct in removing unreferenced material. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. Name Omitted (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0325-00752005000400007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=es. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |autor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[2] ttp://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx

[3] ttp://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4338.0main+features212011-13

[4] ttp://www.passports.govt.nz/Completing-your-application---converting-your-height

[5] ttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/weights-poids/guide-ld-adult/bmi_chart-graph_imc-eng.php

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]