Talk:Human height/Archive 1

message: Because I've grown up with measuring people's heights in feet and inches, when I first looked at the table of average heights in each country, I wasn't sure what was short and what was tall, so I thought I'd be a good dutiful Wikizen and convert the heights into Imperial measurements and have them along side the metric measurements, so we could all be happy.
One snag, I've no idea how to merge cells in tables on Wikipedia. I tried looking up how to do it but it all went over my head!
As a result, it looks pretty crappy. Would somebody mind improving it? Puhweeeeeez?
The data in the table is invalid, though I can't cite "official" data for each country.  There is, however, an article on successive famines in North Korea suggesting that, indeed, average young male height is perhaps below 5 feet (152.4 cm): http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001857855_korea14.html 
Rich Da 5' 8"
: A related article (same researcher) on the North Korean famine and attendant acute stunting: "The average 14-year-old boy was 10in (25.4 cm) shorter than his average South Korean peer and 42lb (19kg) lighter. The average 17-year-old was 5ft tall, compared with 5ft 8in in the South." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1082644,00.html
sorry i dunno how to start my own section....but you appear to have used a dodgy calculator in your conversions. the value for the uk in centimetres is higher than that of the usa but alongside it the value in inches is shorter than the usa....whats going on?
I have my doubts about alot of the figures written here as averages.
For starters in Europe these statistics seem to apply to the younger generations though this has not been stated. In which case the Australian average of 177cm should be increased to 178.
I'm also sceptical about some of these figures in general. 178cm for an Iranian ..... where did that come from?
I can tell you that the information here is far from accurate. For example, the latest data for young Spaniards, males, is 1,78, but the table indicates 1,73. These data are quite old. On the other hand it uses data that are not correct at all, like the 1,84 for young Dutchmen.
: You're joking right?  A person's height fluctuates an average of 19mm over the course of a day, and you think a difference in 5mm shows a serious problem with the data being out of date? Pete.Hurd 02:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imperial Measurements Added 

message: The entire article that lists the average heights relys on the source http://www.kurabe.net/average_height/   which is I must say very sketchy and is not even in english. It also goes against alot of other sources that are more reliable.
Also it says the average height in napoleons army was 5'0"...This is also nonsense because Napoleon himself was 5'6" according to his death measurments.(See the napoleon page about the myth of him being short). Napoleon would of towered over the rest of his him if the average height in his army was 5'0".
Someone needs to fix it and provide a source when they do.
Another thing...It says that Asians are not genetically shorter but are only that way due to environment and poverty and mal-nutrition. This is nonsense. If it were true....Japanese would average the same as americans do since their economy is doing nearly better than ours. Not only that...But Asian Americans would not be shorter if they grew up in America,But they obviously are. This also needs to be changed.
* Quite so, and on the rare occasion, when an American is born and raised in Asia, say one born to parents who are diplomats, he too reaches the taller height of the Americans despite breathing the same air as the locals. Besides, what about the more privileged? Islam Korimov of Uzbekistan is short, so are his cabinet colleagues and they have never had impoverished lifestyles! Good observation. Celtmist 17-10-05
* It has to do with diet. Oriental diets are vegetable and starch based, and hence contain less protein than Western diets. They eat rice and vegetables, instead of steak, cheese, and milk. So wealthy Japanese and Asian Americans are still short because they consume an oriental diet.
* Asians get less protein?! I beg to differ. Meaty dishes like those with duck and pork are part of many chinese foods. I'm taiwanese myself and from experience, oriental people who are wealthy/rich enough to afford these dishes often enjoy eating them. Plus, what about seafood, which the Japanese eat like crazy! Seafood is high in protein and calcium as well. While it is true that asians don't exactly eat that much dairy, or consume much steak, Asians do get their protein.
* To me, Asians have a huge range of heights.  Are you talking only about East Asians?  If so, then generally North Chinese and Koreans are tall while South Chinese and Japanese are short.  The majority of Chinese people in the USA are from Southern China so....you can come to your own conclusions.
:So, what do these more reliable sources say the heights are?  I see no reason to assume kurabe.net is not reliable just because it's not in English... Pete.Hurd 20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketchy source for averages... 

message: The IP 80.56.86.189 has made several changes to the data in this page, the most recent has been tagged as vandalism.  These are subtle edits which qualify as severe vandalism (the same IP has made significant, reverted as vandalism) edits to population of Somalia, and made racist abuse vandalisation to ages like Congoid. Someone should go back and revert all the edits made by this IP. Pete.Hurd 19:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page protected for a time. Hopefully the vandals will get tired and quit. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lifting the protection; hopefully the vandals have gone away. I've got this on my watchlist, if it starts again I'll put it back. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The data on the page you deleted the link to (http://www.kurabe.net/average_height/) is sourced.  The data come mainly from government publications derived from census data, and articles in reputable journals.  Thouse sources are more solid that the English links you didn't delete.  I think there is embedded vandalism in the table, maybe it deserves some sort of a 'disputed' tag until it gets cleaned up, but I really don't understand rejecting data from kurabe.net just because that web page isn't in English.  Perhaps we could solicit some assistance from wikipedians proficient in Japanese and other source languages to track down and translate the citations, I just had a Japanese colleague give me a quick report.  The sources were adequate for scholarly work as he saw it.  Pete.Hurd 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anon 69.0.125.232 "TJ"'s complaint about the table being wonky is laughable, being made a minute after having vandalized it himself.  I find 203.158.48.179 "rom"'s comment about not usually being so prejudiced a bit of a releif.  I was secretly fearing that your complaints about the page were motivated by some wierd racist ideology, nice to know this isn't the case "rom".  Oh, BTW, I read your contribution on White Self Hatred on the Self-hatred entry.  It's really fascinating stuff.  That's the wonderful thing about wikipedia, huh?  All those different points of view, each with their own pages.  Now, about your suggestion that we delete data from scientific papers because you don't like it.  I think it should stay.  I'm really excited to hear that you have better data.  That's great!  The sources for the current data are as good as it gets on the net, and most of the sources are as good as it gets period.  I'm particularly keen to hear if you have found data on Jamaicans or Zulus, because I've been looking for those numbers for months.  Methodological problems with mean height data is well known and discussed in great detail in papers such as the one cited on the page.  Perhaps you could contribute more to this field of knowledge by coming up with new criticisms, or methodological improvements for cllecting such data.  I think you ought to submit that to  the Annals of Human Biologyof some other learned journal.  Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 18:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Deleting the whole table deleted more than just karube.  Karube isn't a reliable source, it's a collection, which  does list some of the sources (so it can be verified) and it lists the date of collection, and the age range of the subjects in the sample.  If the data looks wonky, then go find more data, with it's source reference, date and age of sample etc, and stack it up against what other data has been collected.  The answer isn't to delete everything in a hissy fit then sulk off.  For some wierd reason, this page attacts vandalism like a cow pie attracts flies. The Iran and Iraq entries are probably ficticious vandalism, and many of the other values have been mutated by hundreds of vandalistic edits.  This article needs effort to fix it, it would be great to have better data than karube.  Are you just going to complain, or are you going to actually DO something? Pete.Hurd 05:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been researching the effect of prenatal hormone exposure on adult behaviour, including aggression.  Prenatal hormones also influence Digit ratio and other anthropomorphic traits.  Digit ratio shows very strange variation across ethnic groups.  Some researchers have suggested that lattitude explains some amount of the that ethnic variation,  The same pattern has been suggested for human height, so I've been examining the relationship between height and digit ratio, both between individuals within ethnic groups (pretty easy to do), and between ethnic groups on average (harder to get data). Pete.Hurd 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: This table is seriously ugly, and the value of it is seriously questionable.
When the original source (or an actual source) in some cases is found to replace karube it should go.
Even though, Pete.Hurd, has implied Karube itself is a source and of scientific studies no less. He has since admitted it's just a list of sources. (or as i would argue, a list of sources both real, imagined and mislabelled).
The Australian values are debatable with abs(Australian Bureu of Statistics, releasing different figures 177 and 178cm for men, but is more consistent with women. Whatever is the most recent study should be trusted, and ofcourse dated.
As for Norway, i'm pretty sure it's just mislabbeled. It is exactly the average of 2002 18 - 19 year old recruits. The reason they mislabbeled it is that military age in norway is (from the year your turning 19) and military age is up to 44. So a bit of knowledge about that which probably hurt them. The averages refer to the enrolments, and not the officers etc, so while it's possible that there are deferments being counted, 18 - 19 is a much better label than 19 - 44. Mislabeled, sourced, don't need karube.
The major hurdle to me collecting these statistics is that it's so much easier to find male heights than female.
The original source is always better than a list of sources, so there's sort of a tacit agreement for me not to nuke karube, but if I find the original source Karube is citing then source it and label it properly, the karube source should be considered replaced, and redundant or mislabeled data should not be added from cache.
:Here's what I think ought to be done with the table:
# All the anon edits without sources should be marked with an "x" in the Source column.  An asterisk note in the table footer should say something about these potentially being vandalous edits from spurious sources.
# All the karube values should be in the table with the "b" source tag.  An asterisk note in the table footer should say something about some people thinking that some of these values are not credible.  The sources for the karube values should be investigated, and when they are, the source should be changed from "b" to another letter that indicates the non-karube source.
# Data from other sources should be added to the table with corresponding sources, added not replace other data.  Deleting data is like burning books, just not done.  All data is questionable, and human height is not the sort of thing that we ought to expect "one true answer" to, and so it is appropriate to gather data and present it so that educated consumers of the data can evaluate the outliers for themselves.
# The year the data was collected should be added to the table where it can be found, as has been done for the subject age.  This will be really useful to present change over time.
# It would be great to get ethnic data from levels other than national averages, as long as these are quantitative.  Anecdotal evidence of variation between closely placed geographic populations certainly deserves a paragraph in the page somewhere.
:Make sense, sound ok? Pete.Hurd 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The other problem is that if the data is sourced, it may then be out of date, since some sources update yearly etc" There's nothing wring with "out of date" data, as long as it doesn't make the table impossibly large, since it may show patterns of change over time, which would be notable.  I think "x" should be used for all unknown sources.  A dredge through the ealy history of this file suggests that attributing some of the dat to sources may be impossible.  If unsourced, mark as dubious IMnsHO. Pete.Hurd 04:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's been a while since I looked at the karube site.  I have a copy of the site saved somewhere.  I'll see if I can find it. Pete.Hurd 02:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put a copy of the old karube page (in all it's decrepit glory, minus the flags) here.  I may put up an english translation (if I run out of useful things to do) Pete.Hurd 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Given that it's not as crucial as it once was for country data it may not be worth the trouble for a translation, but the individual sources would be nice. Evolauxia 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: This article is quite a mess, especially the international table and height data, which I know is incorrect. I'm not even gonna touch that, at least right now.
I reworked the body of the article and added quite a bit. It's incomplete right now, and especially needs better structuring IMO. Another priority is to add quantative data to the text as well as citations, which I'll do as time permits. Discussion is much encouraged.
Good work Evolauxia,
: I think references (stuff like the CEOs are taller, and taller candidates win, as well as the psysiology) would be really valuable!  As for the pressing need for some informed discussion of scientific research on genetic and environmental factors.  A couple of papers that might be a useful start to whoever picks that up: 
:*Livshits, et al 2002. Genetics of human body size and shape: body proportions and indices.ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY, 29:271-289.
:*Livshits, et al 2000. Genetic analysis of growth curve parameters of body weight, height and head circumference.                                                    ANNALS OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 27: 299-312.
Cheers Pete.Hurd 14:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there is about a 2cm increase of average height for each age group which are 10 year intervals for all but age 75+ and for the youngest, age 20-34; extrapolating for the current youngest adult males would yield something close to (at least) the 184 cm figure you said you saw somewhere. Very notable is the huge increase in average over time (8 cm from age 75+ to age 20-34), with both a large decrease in short people and a large increase in those very tall (not just the mean cluster has shifted, the change is lopsided to the right). From the 50-64 age group to the 20-34 age group, there is a near tripling in those 198+ cm from 0.0% to 2.7%, a 6x increase for 193-197 cm from 55-64 to 20-35, a 3.5x increase for 188-192 cm from 55-64 to 20-34, and a 10.5% increase for 182 cm from 55-64 to 20-35; 54.4% of the 20-34 age group was 183 cm or taller, 10.4% were 193 cm or taller. (Year 2002 sample size totals 3,558, ranges 179 (75+) to 1079 (20-34), and averages 593.) 
Average height of Dutch 20 year old males rose 4 cm in 15 years from 1965-1980, and the Dutch have grown 15 cm in the last 40 years. A survey by the marketing firm DfK announced in 2004 that a 7 year study yielded an average of 185 cm for all Dutch men. The economist and prominent auxologist John Komlos has found the same height.
I don't know what has caused such a high rate of increase and the lofty actual heights for the Dutch, but there are a lot of environemntal inputs affecting height. They do have a high quality health care system that's fairly egalitarian and they have very little poverty, but so do some other countries; one factor is probably the excellent prenatal and postnatal (a critical period where health strongly correlates with adult height) care system which is perhaps the best in the world. The accumulative generational effect increases the rate but other factors must be causing the increase in the first place; but the same generational effect also applies to other countries that have comparably taken care of their populations. In the last few decades, the height difference between males and females has increased, suggesting that stressors have been alleviated. 83% of the population is of Dutch descent, 9% of the remaining 17% are Turks, Moroccans, Antilleans, Surinamese, and Indonesians. Evolauxia 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: The height-table provided in this article is hard to believe. Are indians really the third shortest people in the world, as shown by this table? As per this article, only phillipinos and vietnamese are shorter than Indians. This somehow does not look right. I have seen many south american and central american people and they look much shorter.
Also, Pakistanis are shown to be almost four inches taller than Indians on average. Anybody visiting India and Pakistan will find their people virtually indistinguishable. Somewhere something is incorrect.
----
Yes, I agree with you. India is a poor country, so the people are short, but I don't know if they are the among the worlds shortest. I think perhaps those statistics where collected long ago and then compared with more recent statistics from other countries. Many third world countries seem to have made up data.
The source your complaining about is Karube, and your not the first one to find those figures dubious.
The reason Pakistanis are taller is since Pakistan is majority Punjab and Pathan, who were the tallest in the Sub-Continent. The tallest Indians are also Punjabis. The Indian height reduces somewhat due to the large population of South Indian, which Pakistan does not have. If the figures were to exclude them, or if only Indian Punjabis were used as a sample,then I am sure there would be no difference.
--rom
---- Hi, Three Points to be noted
1. Data is not converted correctly from Imperial to metric system 
   Pakistan. 169.9 cm = 5'7"   (apprx.)    In Table stated 5'9.5"
   Which one should be believed Imperial system or Metric? I believe that Imperial System shows the      correct figure.
2. People of three states out of four in Pakistan display taller heights as mentioned above. Punjabis, Pathans and Baluchis are normally taller people. One can say they average easily around 5'10-11". Sindhis also average around same, but have a bigger share of UP(India) Immigrated people in Sindh cities. Even they also average about 5' 5-8".
3. People from India and pakistan are very easily virtually distinguishable. (Strature and complexions both)
---
I don't know where the data for Pakistan comes from.  I'd suggest deleting it if it's source cannot be identified. If you can find data on mean height for Sindhi, Punjabi, Pathan and Baluchi samples that would be great. Pete.Hurd 21:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty data on India? 

message: I think the Watussi,Dinka, Neur and Anuak people of East-Central Africa are the tallest in the World. Many of the Dinka men have an average stature of 6ft 5 and 5 ft 11 for women.
Many of the dinka men have an average stature of 6ft5 and women 5 ft 11? that's very tall, but what does a statement like that mean. There's an average height and confidence interval etc for Dinka men and women, i'm not sure what that is, or if there is firm data on it. But saying many Dinka Men and women have average heights as tall as you mentioned could mean alot of things. Dinkas from unusually tall families might, if the Dinkas have elite volleyball, basketball or rowing teams they might. In fact you could make the same statement about Chinese or any ethnic group.
But more data is needed before I'd believe a claim like the average height of Dinka men being 6'5" and women 5'11". 
btw this crappy karube data is still here /me sighs:
--rom
Actually, I got that info about the Dinka men from the 1990 Guinness Book of world records. If that is a reliable source at all.
rom's concerns are right on target, both in respect to (portion of) population involved and to sourcing. The Watusi (better known as Tutsi) and Dinka are commonly listed as the tallest tribes in the world and various groups in that region are quite tall (under good conditions; the famines, genocides, and wars certainly haven't bode well), even among the tallest, but the given heights are often much exaggerated. The average stature is much lower, though there was some inbreeding which produced very tall heights within certain groups (which isn't hard to do with selective mating, two tall parents (or if not there, then when continuing over a generation or two) can readily produce familial statures well in excess of the Gaussian range allowing reliable statistics). 
Various tribes in central and east-central Africa (generally herders/nomads) do seem to be somewhat taller than other populations; and it's fairly conclusive that they have a longer long-limb ratio than most, quite possibly the longest in the world (some Australian Aborigine populations also exhibit this). The tallest tribe may be the Masai, as I've read in reputable sources, the only one I recall off the top of my head being the New England Journal of Medicine (~2003). It would be interesting to see what the secular trend and (optimal environment) homogeneity would do to these populations, as it really has/is converged a lot of ethnoracial height differences (almost all). Incidentally, the shortest tribes are also in this general region. Additive to the complex multifactorial, polygenic determinism of stature, these changes are quite interesting for a variety of implications (especially if tribes were to retain their genetic stock).
Though it's not too bad (usually more reliable than the general media) I don't consider the Guinness Book as the most reputable sourcing, especially over the last decade or so. That said, in this case they now say the Dinka/Tutsi are tallest but list male heights around 6'0" whereas I know in the early-mid 90s they did list those inflated heights mentioned (and even higher). Evolauxia 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallest Tribe 

message: The following was deleted from the article by 82.70.132.246 due to lack of references.  I put it here while references are gathered.
"Height (along with other physical features) does have some role in an individual's development of personality."
Off the top of my head I'd say the literature following on from:
* Montemayor, R. (1978) Men and their bodies: the relationship between body type and behavlour. J Soc Iss 34:1--
and references in:
* Martin & Nguyen (2004) Anthropometric analysis of homosexuals and heterosexuals: implications for early hormone exposure. Horm Behav 45:31-39.
but I'll add them here as I come across them. Pete.Hurd 19:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Height & Personality