Talk:Height discrimination

message: This article contains multiple references to speculative, unsubstantiated, and pseudo-scientific Eugenic theories that justify height discrimination through evolutionary fitness. At the very least the references need to be tightly boxed with emphasized critiques. Specifically, the reference's proposed measures of fitness, such as achievement scores, mate selection, academic, professional, and financial advancement, are all confounded by strong psycho-social negative feed-backs due to preexisting bigotry and prejudice.
--2604:3D09:1F7A:4A00:DD46:659A:9B83:1034 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Expunge Eugenic References

message: --Inconsistency between wikipedia articles-- (Flag this if possible if you know how)
Excerpt from Heightism article:
"Moreover, of the 54 U.S. presidential elections only 13 have been won by the shorter candidate, and only 11 times has the shorter candidate received more popular (as opposed to electoral) votes. "
Excerpt from Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates.
"In reality, for the 46 elections in which the height of which both candidates is known, the taller candidate won 25 times (approximately 54 percent of the time), the shorter candidate won 18 times (approximately 39 percent of the time) and the candidates were the same height three times (about 7 percent of the time)."
Statistically this difference is drastic, the former claim would indicate with 99% certainty that there is a heightism difference, and the latter would indicate with 18% certainty (by my admittedly amateur calculations -- binomial test).
--Alex Rohde 2/17/2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.71.84 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: I've been reading it and I'd have to say that some of the old comments below have a point that this article is fixated on how shorter people suffer.  Sure, it's true that they do, but the grass is not always greener on the other side and being tall doesn't mean you have everything.  I'm 6'2.5" myself and believe me when I say heightism affects us too as the manufacture of consumer products, households, clothes, vehicles, and some public areas are made for those of less than people like me and we have to sometimes deal with the Little Man Syndrome from short guys who have something to prove and some other social consequences.  I've dealt with this kind of thing before, so I know it's true.
But for the sake of this being Wikipedia, I know you'd have to have citations and if I could find a good source that would prove social disadvantages of being height privledged, I would, but I'm really rather not good at sourcing.  But all the same, the article needs some serious adjusting to allow for heightism involving us as, despite the intro leaving it open for both to be victims, it's clearly biased.  If I'm not mistaken, that may potentially be against Wikipedia's rules anyways.  Vgamer101 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting view point: I often have the problem myself that kitchen sinks and similar are highly unergonomical for someone of my height, forcing me to either bend my back awkwardly or to stand with bent knees. (Notably, at 1.90 I am tall, but not extremely tall.)88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I have a little problem with this article

message: It seems to me that all of most of the material in this article could be merged into the "Role of an individual's height" section of the "Human height" article.  Thoughts? Bdrasin 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: + vast majority of tall people are african americans.. a high percentage of African americans make up the prison population, maybe someone could write about this correlation? We always hear about height being a causal factor for success, one could also make the same case that height is a causal factor for going to prison. Both arguments are equally absurd. I believe the correlation with success should be removed. If it is included, someone should write about the correlation associated with being tall and committing a felony and going to prison. Just a caveat I believe the editors should be cognizant of and address on the page.
+ michael jackson who sucks, martin sheen in wallstreet, and quite a few big shots on wallstreet are relatively smaller statured  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.110.164 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter Points to Address 

message: OK, so whenever I feel bad about my physical or social distinctiveness, I should slap an "-ism" tag on it, just to cause others feel bad about me feeling bad? Wow, way to go. No, I am not small - THEY are heightists! No, I am not black - THEY are racists! No, I am not uneducated - THEY are elitists! No, I am not fat - THEY are weightists! (does that word actually exit? If not, soon it will be...)
Now, what's next? Soldiers in the army will be all equal to each other, because they will fear of being declared rankists? You know, lower ranks are often at risk for bullying! Damned rankists - boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew! :-) --194.108.186.216 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Heightism?

message: I have added a request for expansion; the article right now deals mostly with discrimination against short men.  If there ARE no other forms of heightism (I doubt it) then the intro to the article should be revised accordingly. --Bdrasin 02:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Anyway, heightism exists in a continuum of forms - which actually occur in practice is another matter.  As it says, "however in principle and occasionally in practice it can refer to unfavorable treatment of unusually tall people".  The problem is that it gives no examples.  And indeed, three of the sections are effectively singling out men to talk about - we could do with more stuff relating to women and children. -- Smjg 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think showing discrimination against tall people would be important too. Think of what Andre the Giant went through. Albeit, that was perhaps moreso due to rotundness as well, but it still happens a lot to beanpoles, if you pardon the slang. Tyciol 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion beyond short man discrimination

message: Height Discrimination against tall men certainly exists.
For example, a perfectly law-abiding, gentle, man of 6'6" can experience stereotyping of being deemed by some people as aggressive and scary and frightening at first impression just because of his height.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:3190:D900:5C05:15EB:6D0:A9AC (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Height Discrimination against tall men

message: Persons experiencing heightism can visit the heightism messageboards by NOSSA. //heightism.aimoo.com I also recommend the website shortsupport.org
:Does it, despite the name, support people picked on both for being short and for being tall? :-) -- Smjg 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found some tall-centric websites (tall.org, tallclub.co.uk, tallwomen.org), but they seem to be focused on clothing/airline seat type issues, social events, etc. rather than discrimination.  Heightism in practice really seems to be targeted at short people, and most particularly at short men. Bdrasin 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NOSSA Heightism message boards

message: Is it just me, or is having a list of "famous tall men/women" clearly biased? Should there not also be a list of "famous short men/women"?
:These lists do exist now.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous tall/short bias

message: What do you guys think would be the cause of this? I think perhaps it might be somewhat related to the observed lack of self esteem. Those who lack esteem might not be motivated to learn as much, thinking themself tiny and stupid. I doubt it would be much due to brain size, as guys like Einstein often had small brains. The larger brain-intelligence (and lifespan) link is more based upon RATIO of brain mass to body mass, not upon total brain size. Possibly also, would be a bias in classrooms. If you're short, perhaps you'd have trouble seeing the board over tall people's heads and be embarassed to bring it up, much like nearsighted people who are embarassed to get glasses. Also, maybe teachers would not call upon short people as often? Tyciol 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, intelligence is definitely distinct from knowledge.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Height and intelligence relationship

message: Initially, both Hitler and Dollfuss were the results of democratic elections. Both became chancellors, but once in office they overthrew the parliament and became dictators. So I do not think they should be listed in the non-electoral column. 62.143.202.16 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heightism in politics 

message: I'm surprised that Danny DeVito isn't in the "Heightism in the media" section. Not only is he much shorter* than Tom Cruise and Michael J Fox, he has been equally - if not more - successful.
Shouldn't we, ahem, "big him up" a little?
*OK, so it's a dodgy source, but according to http://members.shaw.ca/harbord/heights.html we have:
-Danny DeVito 5'0"
-Tom Cruise 5'7"
-Michael J. Fox 5'4"
PS. At least in a school environment, unusually tall children are also bullied.
138.243.129.4 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What no Danny DeVito? 

message: "Taller people may also have a tendency to be awkward, clumsy and ungainly. In more recent years, especially among young people, this has led to an increase in these people being labelled "creepy.""  
-Cite the creepy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: This section has no purpose. It is merely opinion and needs to be removed.--RMBJustice 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not read that section since it is no longer in the article. However I am unusually tall. I do get hostility and discrimination from short people. I also get name-calling about my height (although seldom from short people probably because of the "if you live in glass houses dont throw stones" principal). Some power-orientated people appear to see unusually tall men as a threat to their dominance and are very hostile. There is also the problem of finding clothes that fit. I, and every other unusually tall person I have ever heard of, do not intend to have children, as they would suffer. Peoples comments on the internet suggest that young men in particular find being unusually tall very distressing and disturbing. I wish there was some systematic medical screening and treatment that had prevented me becoming unusually tall - my life would be very much happier and very different. 80.2.193.67 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Many overweight people really have no choice about their weight for genetic or psychological reasons.--46.9.12.58 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantage of Tallness 

message: Is this article an exercise in some sort of absurdist humor, or is it a legitimate proposal that is expected to be taken seriously? It's rather difficult to decipher, especially because the article itself seems to have been written by men who describe themselves as short. Perhaps the more pertinent question is whether an article based upon amateur sociology and pop psychology is truly encyclopedic...
This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.  Geoffrey Arnold 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurdist humor?

message: The last paragraph under "Height discrimination legislation" gives untitled references 33,34, and 35. These references lead to message boards discussing heightism. Although, technically, if someone shares the views discussed in this paragraph on a message board, it is correct that "some people think that it is the employee's job to grow tall..." However, I question the appropriateness of the references.
Kludger 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate References?

message: I tagged the second paragraph of the Legislation section for some weasel words - it looks like much of the info came from a discussion forum. While the forum covered a study on height and income, education, and other factors, phrases like "Some think that discriminating short people would motivate short people to grow taller and smarter by having good nutrition and exercise" sounds a lot like either condensing the article or original research. Jjacobsmeyer 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: The changing of Napoleon's height and the deletion of "was slightly above average height for the time he lived." has left that section not making any sense, and indeed that sentence as a fragment.  The Napoleon I of France article has a section on this topic, which seems to lean towards the 5'2" view, but perhaps it's a bad example to use if the facts are in doubt.  Alai 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonaparte example 

message: maybe we should add a few words about the asians.  Those people are short, but they are all smart.  what do you think that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.195.85 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  asians and intelligence 

message: Has anybody besides me noticed the tendency for short people to become evil tyrants in fiction? To name a few Frieza, Lord Farquaad, Snowball from Pinky and the Brain and Invader Zim. It appears to have become something of a stereotype in the media as the result of diminutive despots in history such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and of course Napoleon. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't Hitler 5'8"?  I think that was average height for a German back then.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.10.111 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Hitler was short, even back then. He's well known for being quite small in stature despite his immense ego. That's another thing actually, short people tend to have huge egos. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler was 5'9" which is average height.  Osama bin Laden is 6'5" btw. Alex5252 (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, he's thought of as having been short. Also don't you think we should mention the proponent for height-deficient megalomaniacs in fiction? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: "That's another thing actually, short people tend to have huge egos." That's a rather bold statement, don't you think? 80.212.231.9 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was a bad thing. I myself have a huge ego. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Short people and evil

message: The article mentions that many professional sports favour height, which is true, however there are a number of examples where height is a disadvantage - Horse Racing jockeys, and most glaringly the scrum half position in Rugby Union. RU also features a "tall players" position - Second Row/Lock Forward, perhaps RU should get a specific mention for being an arena where height discrimination is used both ways? 82.13.249.178 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A word or two on sports

message: I don't see the following as "heightism" U.S. wrold dominattion
 have to be 64 to 77 inches (163 to 196 cm) tall with a sitting height of 34 to 40 inches (86 to 102 cm).''
There is a height requirement because that's the size person the cockpit is designed for.  Severals years ago a pilot friend of mine tried to join the US Navy as a fighter pilot but was deemed "too tall" to fit into the cockpit.65.43.96.3 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment 

message: I was reading this page, and noticed that there is no section that specifically refers to women & height, except in the "Dating & Marriage" section. I'm confused as to whether the statistics cited in the article (especially in the politics & business sections) apply to both males & females, or to just males. Obviously there's a whole different bias against women in these fields, but I'm confused as to whether tall women have an advantage in business and politics, or if it's just tall men who have this advantage. It would also be worth noting, in general, if tall women have a disadvantage or advantage in life, especially compared to short men/tall men. The article seems to only discuss tall/short men, but does not make it implicitly clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.254.35 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification by sex on the page please? 

message: The bullying section seemed to be full of stuff about a Majd Kakish person. This doesn't seem to add much and is rather unreferenced. I've removed it, because it doesn't really add much to the article. Compoundinterestisboring (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Majd Kakish"  

message: Hi, the french word for heightism is mesurisme, the problem is the french wiki community doesn't want recognize this kind of discrimination, so the french paper about heightism is proposed to be suppressed. Could you help to keep this paper on french wikipedia.
Thanks Proximo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.10.17 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the french word for heightism 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Height discrimination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 10:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Here is a good source, with info to possibly be transcluded into this article, on male heightism: http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0106.html 66.243.215.2 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short person support 

message: 1.80 m is a reference for male height, but it's only 5 ft 11. This has a big impact on height perception. --2.245.118.119 (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  metric system 

message: Some of the sections are possibly irrelevant because I'm not sure they constitute discrimination (which is what the article is supposed to discuss)). For example, it is noted that shorter men are generally considered less attractive. But is this discrimination? I mean attractiveness is about personal preference so I don't think it could really constitute discrimination (without also concluding, for example, that all heterosexuals are homophobic and all homosexuals are heterophobic). It also comes across as a bit creepy in some ways since it sort of suggests, to me anyway, that "short men aren't getting as much sex as they deserve". The earnings section is also unclear given that the reasons for taller men's greater success may be down to other factors (greater social skills have been suggested) or being able to project a more powerful image (which isn't really discrimination since other people aren't obliged to view you in a certain way), though the article does note this in a way. 
Basically I'm not sure if some of the things included here really constitute discrimination or prejudice in the way the terms are generally used. One could argue that the information is useful for listing disparities that seem to be related to height and that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy means readers can conclude for themselves whether or not these things constitute discrimination/prejudice. However I'm still not sure they would meet the criteria for relevance (the article itself notes that taller men may do better in certain jobs that require physical height and that this may indeed be down to physical height being relevant to job performance, which thus wouldn't constitute height discrimination and thus be irrelevant to the purpose of the article), so they might still need to be removed. Some parts still are however (for example the part about people being denied a job because they were too short). 
So basically is all the information on the present version of the article relevant?Sdio7 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Height discrimination. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008211834/http://www.afrotc.com/admissions/medicalReq.php to http://www.afrotc.com/admissions/medicalReq.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105201654/http://www.genderadvocates.org/policy/Ordinances/Laws/Santa%20Cruz%20Ordinance.htm to http://www.genderadvocates.org/policy/Ordinances/Laws/Santa%20Cruz%20Ordinance.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061114214707/http://www.naafa.org/fatf/sf_height_weight.html to http://www.naafa.org/fatf/sf_height_weight.html
*Added  tag to http://www.eiro.eurofound.eu.int/2005/11/inbrief/se0511102n.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As a particularly tall individual, I feel this article is written in a manner which is not impartial, focusing on discrimination against short individuals while completely ignoring discrimination against tall people.ShadowLeopardBeetleweightGuy (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an article on discrimination against tall individuals would also be appropriate. Stevenschulman (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Seems like an undue weight advocacy by ShadowLeopardBeetleweightGuy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is not impartial 

message: The user named ContributeToTheWiki  is aggressively reverting appropriate changes to this article. They already have a non-zero vandalism rating on their user page, and I think they need to be prevented from reverting any more changes to this article, in favor of advancing it in the directions pointed out in the disclaimer at the article's top. 
The disclaimers specifically mention that the article itself has heightist overtones, ironically, and neutralizing those overtones is a legitimate project. To the effect of delegitimizing heightism in an article about how heightism is truly an illegitimate form of discrimination. As long as this user is allowed to revoke appropriate changes in that direction at will, this article's progress in the right direction will be dogged.
The edits in question were not reflected on the abuse log page, which indicates that this is a result of this users personal efforts, not those of Wikipedia. 
If anyone else has had their own appropriate edits reverted by this user, please reply to this topic, to help ensure this article is allowed to progress without their interference. There are PLENTY of people working on this, it's not like ContributeToTheWiki is some essential barrier to problems. 2603:7081:400:9070:1870:F310:5A49:B638 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  User named ContributeToTheWiki is removing appropriate changes to this article