Talk:Average human height by country

Proposal to add figures on average height in Belgium

Hello,

I propose new figures concerning the average height of women and men in Belgium. These are from 2018 and come from the "Belgian Health Examination Survey (BELHES)". In this survey they measured a seemingly representative sample of the Belgian population of 1152. The results are: 163.1 cm on average for women and 176.8 cm on average for men (mixed average of 169.9 cm). The detailed results of the health survey by examination are detailed in Table B 41. page 115, in the following link: https://www.sciensano.be/sites/default/files/report_hes_masterfile_fr_final.pdf. Thank you in advance for reading this message and considering or not my proposal.

Good-bye. 2A02:A03F:C8EB:6F00:F1F1:EA2F:6405:74DA (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thank you for adding the figures from BELHES 2018.

I actually found other figures about the average height of adults in Belgium. However, these dates back to 2005, but they come from a very detailed Belgian anthropometric table (DINBelg 2005 : [1]http://www.dinbelg.be/adultstotal.htm). They would have measured more than 150,000 people. Here the average height of Belgian women (18-65 years) would be 164.6 cm and that of Belgian men (18-65 years) 176.6 cm.

Perhaps the addition of this data would overload the wikipedia table, but I personally propose to add these figures too.

Thank you again for adding the previous figures and for adding or not these other figures.

Goodbye ! 109.131.206.80 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023 (average male height for 2 Pakistani provinces)

Greetings,

I want to add an academic source detailling the height of 18-30 males in a Pakistani province, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (sample of 462), done in 2021, here it is (sorry if on this page it all looks a bit messy!) :

| Pakistan – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa||174.01 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | —|| data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 18–30 (N= m:462) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2021 ||

Another one recent as well, this time about Punjab province

| Pakistan – Punjab||173.42 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || 162.08 cm (5 ft 4 in)|| 1.07 || 18–30 (N= m:100 f:100) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2021 ||

Thank you!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear.

Basically many big countries have further big divisions, such as Urban VS Rural for Brazil, cities for others and even specific ethnic groups in the case of the USA.

I wanted to do the same for Pakistan considering how big it is and these two Provinces are bigger than other whole countries (Punjab 120 million & KPK 40 million as per 2017 census).

In order to respect the size I want the division to be from the largest unit (beginning with Pakistan itself) to the smallest (the city of Rabwah).

Thus it would look like this

Pakistan

Pakistan - Punjab

Pakistan - Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Pakistan - Rabwah

As for the sources I think they're reliable as they could (journal articles with dozen of Pakistani academics specialized in the field as authors)

Thank you. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:5ED:2827:393C:B10A (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why this wasn't done. You clearly gave the sources, put it in the proper format and everything, which is beyond what most contributors do on this article. That said, this is not necessarily something you have to ask to do, though, as far as I know. Criticalthinker (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - this looks like it was fine to me in the first place and the sources look perfectly acceptable so I've added this in. Tollens (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was also wondering but I'm not sure, if we could take out "Rabwah" ?

My rationale is the following : Rabwah is a city within Punjab, but now the Punjab province is already covered so I think to add a city (pop of <100 000 in a province of >100 million) might be redundant/too specific ? Especially as Rabwah is not an "important city" (not a capital, nor even a provincial capital or even important as an industrial center so on.)

Again I'm not sure (as it's referenced and all) just asking.

Cheers. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:18FD:88CB:A674:B40B (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2023 (sources unjustly taken out)

Greetings few days ago I submitted two references about Pakistan's provinces that were accepted but now someone just took it out on the 7 April 2023 (12:40) by‎ "Headbomb".

I find this unfair: The expression "predatory source" is itself ambiguous but in this case all the authors of both articles are academics attached to Pakistani universities who have done empirical work detailling their methodology, nothing "dubious", so I found this somehow unjust to just take this out so unequivocally.

I'd like these reinstated.

Thanks.

| Pakistan – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa||174.01 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | —|| data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || 18–30 (N= m:462) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2021 || |- | Pakistan – Punjab||173.42 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || 162.08 cm (5 ft 4 in)|| 1.07 || 18–30 (N= m:100 f:100) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2021 ||

 Not done: The identity of the academics who have conducted the research is a lot less relevant than the trustworthiness of the journal who published their research. In this case, Headbomb looks to be right; at least one of the journals you cited is a predatory institution charging researchers money to publish their works with little oversight. If you disagree, I would recommend involving Headbomb in the discussion, for example by pinging him here or leaving a message on his talk page. Engaging in an edit war would be unwise (and is prohibited). Actualcpscm (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

sorry for the misunderstanding I know get it better but after verification only 1 of the 2 sources belongs to a "predatory journal", the "Punjab" source, the "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" source is legitimate so perhaps deserves to not be deleted ?

I've found another more credible reference for Punjab that could replace the former Punjab source, it's the following :

| Pakistan – Punjab||173.42 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || 162.08 cm (5 ft 4 in)|| 1.07 || 16–35 (N= m:100 f:100) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2021 ||

It has citations (7) & references (19), including in the following research article :

"[...]The mean height of the Pakistan Punjabi population is shown to be 173.42 cm for males and 162.08 cm for females[...]"

Link of the citation : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368392116_Determination_of_stature_from_handprint_anthropometry_among_Malaysian_Indians_for_person_identification

I hope this source satisfies the requirements for the Pakistan - Punjab province but again I feel the Pakistan - Khyber Pakhtunkhwa source was always a good one.

Thanks for your understanding. 2A02:A03F:6500:CF00:75FA:1ACD:366:18FE (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: That paper is published on ResearchGate, a site anyone can published papers on, so it is a user-generated source and not reliable. @Headbomb: Why did you consider the International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research source to be a predatory journal? I can't find any info on it online. I have decided not to include it myself because the journal seems to have a very small presence in general, with about 100 citations per year despite 8000 publications. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

"Why did you consider the International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research source to be a predatory journal?"

Because it is? See Beall amongst many others red flags. Likewise for International Journal of Forensic Sciences from the predatory Medwin. See also User_talk:Headbomb#On_removed_sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I think I finally found a good source, at least for "Pakistan - Khyber Pakhtunkhwa",

| Pakistan – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa||173.7 cm (5 ft 8+1⁄2 in) || 164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)|| 1.04 || 18–21 (N= m:108 f:86) || data-sort-value="" style="background: var(--background-color-interactive, #ececec); color: var(--color-base, inherit); vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-na" | — || Measured || 2017 ||

This journal is referenced on the famous "SCImago Journal Rank" which shows its credibility and it says at the end of the article "this study can be generalized upon the young adult population of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa"

So I think we could replace the old data (from the "predatory journal") with this one. Thanks. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:9DEA:8E74:E543:560D (talk) 11:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Greetings we've had discussions for many weeks now I think we can reach a sort of consensus on my very last source about Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, thanks. 2A02:A03F:6504:1700:C437:5308:643D:D6D3 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Age groups

Would be nice if we had tables per country per age group. Since the average length can differ significantly between the age groups of a single country. 163.158.1.136 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

United Kingdom heights

The heights for the UK are all claimed to be measured, covering 100% of the population, and are referenced with the 2012 cencus. What the fuck is this? 90.194.189.83 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Serbia misinterpreted data

the reason for suggesting a deletion of Serbia data that states male height of 174 cm is that the data was misinterpreted. As a source, information related to a study dealing with obesity is cited. The height given in the table for the male population refers to the participants in the study of both sexes. 94.189.185.200 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

New figures on the average height of adults in Switzerland (2017).

Hello! I propose new figures on the average height of men and women in Switzerland dating from 2017. They come from the Federal Statistical Office and are self-reported. The average height of men is 177.4 cm and that of women is 164.7 cm. The sample consists of 10435 men and 11644 women. The detailed results can be downloaded as an excel table from this site: [2]https://www.bfs.admin.ch/asset/fr/7586018. Thank you for your reading and free to add or not these figures. Yours truly. 2A02:A03F:C8EB:6F00:284F:4CE1:EE2C:4246 (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2023 (discussion about Indian data, is it representative ?)

Hi the page has 2 data's for India, both measured, both in 2011, but with quite some difference despite the similarities in year : 5ft5 and 5t8 1/2 for the average male height.

For the latter, it's written that it's "partly from upper socioeconomic strata".

"A total of 106 843 children were evaluated, of which 42 214 children (19 303 boys, 22 911 girls) were from the lower socioeconomic strata and 64 629 children (34 411 boys, 30 218 girls) were from the upper socioeconomic strata."

So it's not "some" but MORE THAN HALF (around 65%) that are from the so called upper socioeconomic data... and I'm not sure that more than half of the Indian population fits that category either?

Also it'd be contradictory with the results of the National Family and Health Survey 4 (2015-2016), the NFHS having been described as "a large-scale, multi-round survey conducted in a representative sample of households throughout India."

Basically, the official govt numbers on national level.

And the NFHS 4 are far from giving such numbers, please do refer to this comparative study, it's more like the first number (5ft5) and even lower :

"Among men, between the two surveys, both the age groups of 15–25 years and 26–50 years showed significant decline in average height: 1.10 cm [95% CI, -1.31 to -.099 cm, p-0.00] and 0.86 cm [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.69, p-0.000], respectively."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8448320/

So my question is : is that data worth keeping considering how unrepresentative it is ?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:64ed:2600:b167:7d27:1b08:1ed1 (talk) 16:15, August 6, 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Are you asking to remove one of the two rows? You've quoted the word "some", but this word does not appear in either row. "Partly" however accurately describes the study's data pool, and the table is reporting individual surveys which vary due to the issues explained above. Do you have reliable sources that refute this specific study? If so, please provide them. --Pinchme123 (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, basically : there are two datas from the same year but have nearly 4 inches of diff in the average male height.

So my proposition is that only one looks more credible, and it's probably not the second one putting the average at Southern European standards.

So I was wondering if it was legitimate to keep it here especially as I mentionned the country's largest survey on the matter also found 5'5'' ish numbers (as my article shows).

And yes it didn't use "some" (I paraphrased) but is "partly" more legitimate when 65% are from the so called upper class ? 2A02:A03F:64ED:2600:8C49:3617:F13F:74A1 (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. The table includes multiple instances of one country with multiple studies, with variation between those studies. If you think one study is less credible, please provide reliable sources explaining that the study is not credible and find consensus to remove it. As for the word "partly", I do think it's appropriate as a descriptor here. But of course other editors might disagree with me. Please find consensus with other editors for such a change before requesting such an edit. -- Pinchme123 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, please refer back to my very first post, I have demonstrated why one study is less credible quoting the national survey about the question. 2A02:A03F:64ED:2600:9866:68DA:67F9:49D9 (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: WP:CONSENSUS, that you have been asked to seek, is not achieved through edit requests. M.Bitton (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Overstimated data. A critic

Although bias in statistics is here mentioned, this page is highly problematic because the data are based on online studies that use largely self-reported data by Countries or collected data from apps etc.

A critic

Take references for Italy, notes 88-89. The first source is from Il Giornale (sic), a newspaper that always tends to exaggerate, property of Silvio Berlusconi's society. This last fact I wrote is not important, but the quoted article as source for sure: the title is (I translated from Italian): Youth: North has less sex than South. Heights are mentioned among many other things very far from scientific analysis. The second source is from Padova Oggi, a local, scientifically irrelevant newspaper particularly exaggerate and based in a little city. The title of the source is (translation from Italian): The young adults between sex, smoking, alcohol and drugs: "important" numbers for Padua, but there are those who beat it.... But, and this is even worst, if you search where the Italian "study" promoted from Padua was published, you cannot find it. The idea that in Italy the average male and female height in young people could be the anthropometric tall-very tall values (according to the authorities scales) you are able to read online is hard to be demonstrated. Those values are science fiction. We can open the notes 13, 22, 90, about old data collected from 1994-2000: the first (13) reminds to a study titled The role of nutrition and genetics as key determinants of the positive height trend, the second (22) is a study on Montenegrin adults (sic) with only a very short reference to an old Cacciari's (and others) study published in 2006, on Italian percentiles: a work of 1994-2000 in which the measured people were a sample of schoolchildren covering only 16 of the 20 Italian regions, a total of 27.421 girls and 27.374 boys, aged 6-20 y.o. with no distinction of the precise number of measured subjects for each age category. Finally, the note 90 reminds to Cacciari (and others) study, in which the measured subjects are indicated as aged 2-20 y.o. (another study? Appendix? When the subjects from 2 y.o. to 6 y.o. have been integrated and which was the impact on the results?). But this is not the main point. When we read the data of the 'Second table' (19 y.o. in 2000) it is clear that the average height is lower, but a precise anthropometric academic source there is not. On the contrary, online there are many gossips that are considered "true" statistics.

I allow myself to translate a passage I quoted from the Italian WP voice Statura I worked and I am working on:

In 2023 a study published by the Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health of the University of Milan and appeared on Scientific Reports analyzed the remains of 549 males and females buried in Milan over almost 2000 years of history (with periods of time that included the Roman era, the Early Middle Ages, the Late Middle Ages, the modern and contemporary eras) and the opposite of the thesis on the rise of average stutures over time emerged. In fact, the scientists found that the stature of the males varied from 152 cm to 195.4 cm, with an average of 168.5 cm. The stature of the females ranged from 143.5 cm to 177.6 cm, with an average stature of 157.8 cm. The average height of males and females has therefore remained stable over time and has not been significantly different in the various periods. url=https://www.lescienze.it/news/2023/02/28/news/altezza_abitanti_milano_stabile_duemila_anni-11456060/

This means that in the biggest and most important North-Italian city, the average height (163.15 cm) has no changed for 2000 years.

A study published in 2021, Changes in weight and height among Chinese preschool children during COVID-19 school closures https://www.nature.com/articles/s41366-021-00912-4 based on the analysis of 124.603 children from multi-city kindergartens in China evaluated the prevalence of overweight and obese in preschool children experienced school closures, and compared the changes in BMI, weight, and height of preschool children among COVID-19 school closures period, the same period last year and the same period the year before last. The results: after the school closures, childhood obesity prevalence increased, whereas overweight prevalence decreased. During school closures, the average increase in height was about 1 cm less as compared with the same period last year and the year before last.

Conclusion: is it possible that more accurate researches on data and sources quoted in this WP voice for all Countries, demonstrate that an encyclopedia article on average heights, as it is currently conceived, is not culturally useful but misleading especially for the large impact on network people and ? I took the Italian example only and a recent study in China linked to Covid-19. And the huge amount of data of the others? Especially the older ones? It is not possible but very probable that all those numbers have to be significantly lowered for each Country studying deeply new or old sources. Contextualizing with critical detachment or skimming them. But, at least, I would allow myself to suggest to correct the data written on North and South Italy and eliminate the "sources" indicated (notes: 88, 89). Perhaps it could be possible little by little to write an article not over-the-top. Walther16 (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea, an internationally recognised territory of Ukraine, is listed as Russian on the map. Synycia (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

when did the average height increase???

i looked this up just a while ago and somehow the average height for men in the us is increased by 3 inches, and the female height has decreased by an inch??? Derpyhoi (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

am i stupid? it was the same numbers in 2012. Derpyhoi (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Amend first paragraph typos

First sentence "Below are two tables which report the average adult human height by country or geographical region is usually 55'7"."

Third sentence "With retard..." 58.179.6.103 (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Denmark MagnusKC1308 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Global Number - Weighted

I'm a little surprised that nobody included a "total" figure anywhere to arrive at an average height for "a human".

It's 171.74 cm for men ("weighted" average from the values that exist for the top 20 most populous countries)

It's 159.85 cm for women (same weights as above)

The sample from top 20 most populous countries covers ~45.2% of the global population, so the error margin should be fairly small. Jonathon Barton (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources are non-scientific and need to be reviewed

There are a few that are random articles, at least one is via a reader based question and answer, and others of dubious merit. Propose an asterisk be placed next to those with non-scientific or verifiable sources. 24.125.87.32 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What?

Why in the measures and self-reported figures table does it say the average height of a male in Myanmar is 5 feet 4 inches and a half, but in the estimated data thing it says the average height of a male in Myanmar is 5 feet 5 inches and a half. JosephineG2012 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

actually, coming to this page here for teh first time- it is explained in the lede why... Wuerzele (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. JosephineG2012 (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

change the average height for uk to 181cm as was found in a 2024 study James1732 (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. meamemg (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Accuracy

There are no sources for reference 51, and for Czechia, and the Dinaric Alps 0% of the population were measured.

Also I have noticed that we aren't allowed to edit without having to consult the author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Talmagetheslave (talk • contribs) 10:58, 26 Sep 2024 (UTC)

@Talmagetheslave: You've been deleting sections of the article without adequately explaining why you're deleting the sections. That's why your edits have been undone as being disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

And regarding Czechia and the Dinaric Alps, it looks like less that 0.05% of the population was measured, so it rounds to 0.0% on our display. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That still makes the source likely to be inaccurate. I believe there should also be references for each statistic.

I had deleted reference 51 because there is no source. Talmagetheslave (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Mean and percentile

Forgive me poor understanding of math, but I noticed that we're using the 50th percentile numbers for the American numbers, when the mean is also given for each category. Why is this? I'm also noticed that even using the 50th percentile, the number given for all American males, for instances, 20+ is 175.5 cm (on page 23) and 175.6 cm if you use the mean, when it's listed at 175.3 cm in the chart. I'm not sure what's going on, here. Criticalthinker (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The 50th percentile corresponds to the median, while mean height is the average. PenultimateStride (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and the table lists "average heights." So why are we using the median height figures for the U.S. entries? And, again, even if the median numbers are used, the listed ones aren't all correct. Please take a look at the source material. Criticalthinker (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

You are incorrect, we already use mean height. See page 15 of Vital and Health Statistics report, it clearly states "Mean: 175.3". Keep in mind that the figures for each race refer to the 20 to 39 age group. PenultimateStride (talk) 07:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)