Talk:Human height/Archive 2

message: The karube link is dead, and should therefore be removed. This wasn't a source, but a list of sources, some of which seemed dubious or mislabbeled. It had alot of broken links in it for figures that conflicted with sourced data.
The link for karube has to go, but I think also does the data sourced to karube in the average height list. If someone can find the original sources for the karube data, then it can be added individually on a source by source basis (and find out who is being measured (age group etc) and whether they are self reporting height, or being measured).
This will greatly improve the list, as more sources have been added over time, and karube data is no longer neccassary to make up numbers.
--rom
: I'm not a fan of kurabe.net myself and to use the data sources that were listed there on a case-by-case basis always seemed reasonable to me. Evolauxia 00:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think some of the data (eg Pakistan, that there seem never to have been a source for) are more deserving of deletion than karube.  I have no problem with deleting karube data, but I think a case-by-case approach after some good faith effort has been made to track down the original source cited by karube would be the best approach.  As for the link to karube, why not just redirect it to the copy (I put the link somewhere up above on this page). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur with removing unsourced data; unsourced changes are reverted so it's only fair. Perhaps an admin should archive this talk page, it is getting tediously long. Of course, anyone could do it if we don't care about archiving the histories too? Evolauxia 05:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karube data removal 

message: Hey, I think this FAO dataset BODY WEIGHTS AND HEIGHTS BY COUNTRIES by W.A. Marshall has been mentioned before, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it.  What I don't understand is this page which lists the mean for each population according to the equivalent percentile for 1979 USA population.  That all seems sensible, so for instance, Finns 15+ years old have a mean height which is at the 50th percentile for US 15+ year olds (approx 12th row from the top of the table).  But then the table seems to repeat in a second version, and 15+ year old Finns are at the 30th US pencentile (below Belgium and Czechoslovakia). See what I mean?  Does this make sense?  I think I must be reading it wrong... Pete.Hurd 21:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had problems with that too. The second table is for weight, I think, although it's indicated as length. Compare it with the data from the girls. Junes 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAO

message: No, "Orientals" aren't "shorter" than Europeans. From my experience Northern Chinese, Koreans raised on a modern diet are taller than Europeans--even scandinavians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.34.168 (talk • contribs).
:Show me a sample population of asians bigger than the netherlands that support this. I reckon every race hasn't reached it's potential yet. I know scadanavians seem to have peaked in Norway at about 181 but so has Japanese at 171cm. I think there is a genetic difference. Perhaps caucasians and asians are similar but to give the underdog the benefit of having greater potential is bad logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.100.105.120 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diet plays a role, but it's not everything. See Ruff (2002) Variation in human body size and shape. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 31:211-232; Bogin (1999) Patterns of human growth. 2nd ed Cambridge U Press; and Bogin (2001) The growth of humanity Wiley-Liss for current views of science on the matter. Pete.Hurd 20:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orientals Not Shorter 

message: There is a new study that has been introduced that makes reference to four individual studies with the following measurements for 18 year-old Spanish males in different Spanish regions: Catalonia (Hospital of Vall d'Hebron): 1,73. Madrid: 1,77. Zaragoza: 1,77. Galicia 1,77. The 1.77 figure is consistent with the values presented in the other studies here. The case of Vall d'Hebron (Catalonia) is anomalous, and reading the article one can see that it may even be a print mistake. It is not logical to think that Catalans, who enjoy one of the highest living standars in Spain, are 4 cm. shorter that the rest of Spaniards. In any case, to introduce the smallest value among 5 available right now does not make any sense and is not representative, that is why I am deleting it. HCC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.3.246.15 (talk • contribs).
:If the data are sourced I don't see any excuse for deleting them.  I don't buy the argument that Catalans must be taller because they are more affluent.  I'd prefer to see the data as it is, rather than your demand that the data must be deleted because they contradict your  preconceived view of reality. Pete.Hurd 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Pete, then we can add them. The problem is that in that same article there are data for 4 different Spanish regions, as I have pointed out. In the case of males three of them have the value of 1.77 (Madrid, Zaragoza and Galicia) measured, the same value that we have in the article used for the self-reported values for the whole of Spain. Shall we add all those data then mentioning each region? Then we would have to create a lot of different cells for Spain alone. And I can also mention other sources with different values.  What is your opinion on that? Veritas 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have introduced the values mentioned in the article for each of the four regions. Veritas 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain's values 

message: I have discussed changes about Spain's values. If someone restores it without discussing that is vandalism. Veritas 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's restoring properly sourced material Pete.Hurd 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm I see you use this form of "discussion" regularly Pete.Hurd 22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is what you have to do, discuss it first. I think you know that Pete. I have made my comments above. Veritas 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss changes Spain Values 

message: Shouldn't have at least a note that many small people (even non-disease small) try to get taller by doing this or that? (actually, I want to know how to get taller ._.'). 200.230.213.152 04:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Height 

message: As is, the sources for the table look fairly messy and there are no links in the table versions; I think each row should have a reference tag as you find in all other articles, with the references being added automatically at the bottom. SynergyBlades 18:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table/Sources 

message: "4 ft 5 in" for males, "4 ft 3.9 in" for females.  Are these accurate numbers, or is someone pulling our legs?  -Eric —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.137.84 (talk • contribs).
:Hard to believe, suggest delete, then investigate editor/source for correct value etc... Pete.Hurd 05:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the data seems to have come from averaging between the ages of 6 to 20 years of age, I'll fix. Pete.Hurd 05:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland's average height 

message: It is not only confusing with many pairs of heights per country, but most heights are clearly outdated, and some only bad jokes (Germans 255.5 cm? Yeah, sure.) Either put just one and correct height pair per country, or what I would suggest, simply remove entire crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.115.14.24 (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the average height table 

message: Aren't human heights in metric countries usually quoted in centimeters? — Omegatron 07:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meters 

message: The mechanical equations presented here are verified, sourced,
irrefutable and certainly one can be far more certain of them
than most of the rest of the crap in this article.01001 07:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section you added contains no sources. Simply stating that the content you added is irrefutable is insufficient; the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth – you need to provide specific sources to verify your additions. Please see WP:V and WP:CITE for guidelines on how to add references for material, and see WP:OR for an explanation of why we cannot accept the physics section in its current form does not meet Wikipedia's content policies. Also, please note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes to add the material to the article. --Muchness 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we?01001 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded, in case my intended meaning was unclear. The section you want to add contains one citation, a link to a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia articles "may not be cited as sources" according to WP:CITE. So I reiterate my objection above: this section does not provide any reliable sources to substantiate its claims. --Muchness 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics section added 

message: This section as it currently stands just lists a formula without providing any context or explaining how it relates to the article subject. --Muchness 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance

message: by East Asian standards, Southern Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Japanese are shorter than Northern Chinese, Mongolians, Koreans (well exept for really malnutritioned North koreans). Though that hardly means all vietnamese are short or all mongolians will be tall. 
Just like how italians and spanish would be considered shorter than germans and scandanavians. East Asian height is as diverse as that in Europe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.38.153 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Taiwanese and Northern Chinese and Korean are pretty much the tallest Asians. ― Sturr ★彡  Refill/lol 03:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  some notes on East Asian height 

message: Line 2 of the table, for Canada, is wrong. The metric and imperial figures don't agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.57.16 (talk • contribs).
RE: CANADA
- The values did not even match the article referenced.  Nor, was there any mention that the values were self reported.  I have since entered the metric values directly from the article, and used the correct conversion for Imperial values (2.54 cm to 1 inch).  Nacho0o0o 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada

message: Who deleted the Spanish heights from the average height table? --Criticalthinker 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: It really is a stunning indication of all that is wrong about Piwikedia. 122.167.140.194 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height of idiocy 

message: The height table measurements looked vandalized compared to the last time I checked. For example, France's average height of about 5.3.
Also, is there sufficient data to compare average height's for major cities not just countries?
Eversocratesgreen 09:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height Table 

message: In the height chart, I propose that self-reported height listings for countries only be added when no other data for that country is available.  Because, who really cares how tall someone thinks they are?  People lie, on average, at least 2", so the self-reported heights are pretty ridiculous, especially when you have actual height measurements for particular nation. --Criticalthinker 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Reported Heights 

message: What happen with Israel's heights in the height chart?  I can't determine whether the "feet and inches" measurement was changed or the metric.  Currently, the two don't match up, and it seems someone deleted the source of the information. --Criticalthinker 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: This article from Popular Science can be used to improved the Role of an individual's height section. The section can be greatly expanded. At one point is minimalizes the role of height in the corporate world, but I disagree after reading this article.
Article
Printer friendly
I also suggest linking that section to the article on Heightism--Viridistalk|contributions 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height's effect on life (job and social) 

message: Does anyone know the source of the heights in Montenegro and other countries in the vicinity? I'd appreciate the information. Sincerely, John.Komlos@gmx.de —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkomlos (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegro 

message: I believe the categories of Americans broken down as White non-hispanic, Black non-hispanic and Mexican American is politically incorrect. I believe Hispanic American is more proper. I am a Puerto Rican American and do not feel represented in a "Mexican American" category as I have no Mexican heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.8.173.221 (talk • contribs).
* Nope, you got this wrong.  The data is specifically pretaining to Mexican Americans.  It is not just a poor replacement for Hispanic.  Someone does need to find the average height for ALL Hispanic Americans, though. --Criticalthinker 08:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories of Americans 

message: Does anyone know if there are any environmental factors such as diet and exercise on height, specifically on male height? I've gotten scattered evidence from various sources. I've had some, for example, that have said there is no effect of exercise on human height and others that have said that environmental factors such as exercise definately make an impact. Jotsko 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of environmental factors vs. genetics (diet, exercise, etc) 

message: Why everytime a chinese vandalize the table of average height around the world?They always post references in chinese and post wrong date from China people's height. The average height today of young males in China is greater than Italy, France and Spain? And almost the same height of americans?No way, the average height of chinese increase, but that increase is not that great. In the 80' the average height of chinese man is 1,64 m:(http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID10E/uid10e16.htm#results)
Today the average height of chinese male is about 1,66-1,68 m. For furthers information consult the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) : http://www.cpc.unc.edu/china
Sorry for the bad english, that is not my native language. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.207.80.200 (talk • contribs).
Could you please add a letter for this information, and the source like every other height category?  Also, the link says you need to sign-up for the information. --Criticalthinker 03:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: Am I the only one that finds the new heights for 12-17 years olds in Canada totally irrelevant?  Aren't we supposed to be finding heights for adult populations, mostly, unless there is something very remarkable about teenage heights?  I think that the 12-17 year old numbers just add to confusion. --Criticalthinker 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Canada Height in Chart 

message: Does anyone know the average height? Nothing appeared in Wikipedia's table about it. If you do know please give your source. Aix Duran
4 feet 11? 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Philippines

message: There, the Chinese average height chart has finnally been corrected. 171.7cm male and 162cm female. Since Beijing is the capital and symbol of China, I added the record to compare the height differences of the capital with the rest of the country.
 
Northern Chinese are the tallest Chinese and Asian, while the southern Chinese are smaller according to the climate and economy in the region. 
I do not understand that why everytime there is someone who always change the chinese record to the old 1997 measurement of elders. Please correct it once its changed again.
English is my second language, so parden me if I made grammer mistakes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidc1711 (talk • contribs).
Again, why is there always someone who has absolutely no life messing with the Chinese height table and changed it to 165cm of 2004 measure? I dare to say that no such measurement even exist in 2004. The height is already corrected to China 171.7cm and China Beijing 175.3cm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidc1711 (talk • contribs).
:So once the "idiots" Changed the record incorrect again,please help me change it back. 
:Here is the actual information for China.
:|China (PRC)||171.7 cm||162 cm||5 ft 7.2 in||5 ft 4 in||male 20-25, female 16(measured)||http://www.xishui.net/info/2005-10/2005-10-5-2069.htm
:|-
:|China, Beijing||175.3 cm||162 cm||5 ft 9 in||5 ft 4 in||male 20-25, female 16(measured)||http://www.xishui.net/info/2005-10/2005-10-5-2069.htm
:—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.162.177 (talk • contribs).
That information is dubious. I can't read Chinese, in fact I can't even see chinese characters in my browser but both those heights are an exaggeration. I've been to China and the people were much shorter than this. People had their picture taken with me, and kept asking me how tall I was, I'm no giant. The only explanations are 1. It's a lie, or propoganda. 2. It's the average height of military men, and chinese select taller people for their military service and bring the tallest to their capitals. (I had a teacher who was 6'6" and had a daughter even taller than himself, his daughter played basketball and went to china. He said that there were lots of girls taller than his daughter and if young people were tall they were often in the military.) 
There is simply no way that chinese, northern or otherwise, are legitimately taller than the much wealthier - koreans, japanese, singaporeans, taiwanese etc.
I'll believe it when it comes from an impartial source (not the peoples daily etc), and when it can be read in English. When I tried to find more information I read the average height in beijing had increased by 1.75cm .... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.33.160.124 (talk • contribs).
:If you have been to China, it really depends on the province you are going to. AS you know, China is made up of 50+cultural groups, each group has a large height difference. The life style in China are not as poor as you westerners think it is, there are absolutely noway that the people in China could be that short. For example if you go to China Shandong山东and Beijing北京, most male teenagers 18+ are atleast 178cm and up. Ofcourse there are no actual records of 18 adults, but that was just an estimation of my personal experiance. I am not Chinese, infact I am a Germany abroad student in China, and thats how I learned the Chinese language. I am 180cm and I look just average in most north Chinese provinces. The Chinese people are increasing height at a very fast rate, most of the Chinese friends of mine are usually 3cm taller than their big brothers a few years older.
:The Chinese first began as the northern Chinese, later they expanded their land to the south and west. The southern asians(now southern Chinese)at the time even dubbed them as "the huge mens from the north" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.162.177 (talk • contribs).
Yes, the Chinese are the superior race. The Chinese are the tallest and the most intelligent.
Unfreeride 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: now, according to date, apparently shandong is the tallest, standing at  山东 175.44 cm, roughly 5 feet 9 and a half.  You southern people used to laugh at us from shandong, saying we are stupid, barbaric, and misogynistic.  But when white people conquered you, you crawl back to us.  I don't remember how many times a chinese american told me to go back to china.  Just like to say, you little southern bastards should all be screwed.
70.72.162.177
This has become the angry asian male with an inferiority complex thread. The heights are beyond dubious, especially those of Beijing, China. At 185cm I see eye to eye with about 1 in about 60-70 men in the city. I'd say more but my girlfriend is Taiwanese and watching what I type. Please stop embarrassing the chinese people with stupid statistics and ridiculous claims of chinese supremacy.
124.168.39.104
Please sign your posts 70.72.162.177 and 124.168.39.104.
"At 185cm I see eye to eye with about 1 in about 60-70 men in the city." this is tall for a white guy
The Chinese can be taller than 185cm if they are on a western diet and culture.
Unfreeride 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because these are older people. If you see Chinese people at the age of 18, they will be much taller.
Eskimos have higher skull capacity due to their rounder skulls. Their rounder skulls are adapted to colder conditions due to their small surface area. But eskimos do not have large brains.
Ironically the inferior askenazi jews they tried to irradicate are the most intelligent people in the world according to IQ testing from the book "The Bell Curve".
Sure, Ashkenazi Jews do have better overall IQs than whites and Asians, but Ashkenazi Jews have slightly lower spatial IQs than whites and MUCH lower spatial IQ than Asians. Asians are better than whites in verbal IQ and MUCH better than whites at spatial IQ. Ashkenazi Jews only excel at verbal IQ. It's their verbal IQ that brings up their IQ scores.
Do you believe that the height of Asians and whites are identical given the same environmental conditions?
Unfreeride 19:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Southern Chinese 

message: Why should the article on human height not mention the tallest man. Without an upper limit we could assume humans can grow to as high as 5 or 10 meters tall. We need to mention the range of human height that is possible. He is also necessary because he demonstrates that concepts such as height are not fixed quantities about a group of people. Finally what is this eurocentrism of comparing east asians to western europeans when the earth is inhabited by several billion people who are not western European. East asians should be compared with the rest of the world not western europeans. Are they the standard human being for which everyone should be measured. In actuality it is the Dinka who have the honour of being the tallest.  Muntuwandi 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bao Xishun

message: I think the data for Dinaric Alps and Montenegro is ridicilous. I'm 5'9" a Macedonian, who goes on holiday in MOntenegro every summer and I don't find any difference between montenegrins and macedonians. I would say that 5'9" is the average in Montenegro as well as Macedonia and all of ex-Yuigoslavia. except for some ethnic groups like gypsies, turks and albanians who are evidently shorter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.205.34.99 (talk • contribs).
I hear you man, I originally added the Dinaric Alps data after people told me the balkans had a lot of tall people. I was sceptical but found a decent source so put it up, people seem to want to increase that height past what it was originally listed at without finding a new reference. As we are all aware the Balkans are a hotbed of nationalism and this statistic has since been seized upon by those with that agenda (my speculation there). The actual average height found by the study of young men in the Dinaric Alps is 185.6cm and not 186cm, and 171cm for the young women. The English blurb for the study does say the data is not complete. It says 28% of the men are over 190cm and that's tall enough to notice. Some people earlier on this page did think people in that the people really are tall in this region (even more so than the Duthch)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16168365&dopt=Abstract - here's the abstract information (in English the rest of the article is in French).
This source seems good enough for the table, so until a better source is found I think it's relevant, though one point is that this is a region and not a country. It's interesting to speculate WHY the people of this area are so tall, if this is indeed the case.
203.33.161.65 05:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinaric Alps height 

message: Does height have any real value in the modern world apart from aesthetic value. I mean we are no longer chasing animals to eat so long strides beneficial then aren't much use now. Everyone is in cars and subways. 
We no longer engage in hand to hand combat, wars are fought with guns so the extra reach is not of any use  except in a boxing match. What evolutionary value has height?
Muntuwandi 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What value is height in the modern world

message: I propose that when we have better heights that we systematically begin to do away with source "a" for the height chart "Cavelaars et al 2000".  It seems that these heights are outdated, and when we find better ones leaving this one just looks strange.  Unless the Cavelaars et al 2000 is the only source for any particular country, I saw we begin to get rid of them.  --Criticalthinker 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cavelaars et al 2000