Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 30 July 2006

Archive (August 2004-February 2006)

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, but someone who knows how should remove the violet and blue graph with international height comparisons because it's confusing (with countries noted more than once) and in its current state, uninformative and misleading. It exaggerates differntiation by zooming in on a couple of centimeters.

Moore an Idiot?

Why does it say "Thank you, Moore you are truly an idiot" in this article?

Karube data removal

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)

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)

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)

How about a copy for karube found, then an effort to find the original sources, and a few basic questions answered (age group of people measured, sex, self reported or measured data, year that data was collected, possibably race in a strongly multiethnic country etc).

Then karube is taken out of the table of values, but can be left in links because some may see value in figures we can't source or dispute.

• karube is the name we have given whatever the list of heights in japanese was called.

But the first thing is to replace or delete the dead link.

--rom

FAO

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)

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)

Eurostat statistics

I have read that Eurostat has reliable statistics about height for Europe. Why is there no link to those statistics? Are they not available in internet?

I am not sure, because i'm sure i've linked them at one time. They were a bit hard to find, i remember that much. - rom

Unsourced edits

The average length table is the target of quite a few unsourced edits over the past month. I just reverted back quite a few versions and put this page on my watchlist; perhaps others can do the same. I think we should revert any unsourced edits; I just hope the table is accurate at this point. Junes 13:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The table is not accurate. I don't think you should revert anything if you don't know the values are. But just kill all of the unsourced values, and karube - b, for a much more accurate table. - rom

Are those height data reliable?

What are the sources? Are there any links to those sources? —This unsigned comment was added by LSLM (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 March 2006.

There are some sources mentioned in the article. You can find them if you scroll all the way down. Junes 08:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (by the way, you can sign your contributions with ~~~~)

From now on, I think we should ensure that all edits to the table are sourced and verifiable. We should also seek to find out the date of the measurements, the age of the people measured, and whether the height was self reported or measured.

This table gets really wonky, if a value isn't sourced well, then delete it. - rom

There is a difference of 10 cm between Spain and Germany. Come on, who believes that?. Spaniards have been shooting up much more than that. The height for young British is also wrong, etc. I think there is an absolute admixture of criteria, years, ages, in short, a mess. The Eurostats statistical yearbook 2004 is mentioned for young Germans, but not for other Eurpeans. Most other young Europeans are close to 1.80 in that yearbook, why are the Germans mentioned and not the other Europeans?. HCC.

Why's the height for young British wrong? and the 10cm difference between germans and spaniards you cite is comparing young germans to the whole spanish population, and not young spaniards. From the datat u've given the height difference is really 3 - 4 cm, do you find that easier to believe? -- rom

Eurostats 2004 statistical yearbook.

I propose using that yearbook for heights in Europe. I do not know if you have noticed it, but most of the countries in the list are European. The 2004 is the most recent data available. As I said earlier, why is it used just for young Germans?

As to the FAO statistics. I do not know if I interpret them well, but if I am not wrong boys aged 15-18 in Spain are taller than boys of the same age in countries like UK, Yugoslavia, Belgium, Czech Republic or Poland, which seems in absolute contradiction with the data shown on the list. Can somebody explain that? HCC

Where do you have a link to the Eurostat data? I found something like that, but it contained only data on health, demography and economy. Cartouche, 26 July 2006

Table 4.2.1, in Health Statistics: Key data on health 2002 (Cat # KS-08-02-002-EN-N). I downloaded a copy from I -cannot-remember-where, but that's 2002 (data actually much older than that). Otherwise, I suggest a book like Worldwide variation in human growth by Eveleth & Tanner. Pete.Hurd 06:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Data for spain

Well here I have a very usefull article about height in Spain. It portrays well the development in height that can be seen in so many countries at the moment: http://www.el-mundo.es/magazine/num200/textos/asi1.html

The article is in Spanish, I hope you will be able to understand it. Just in case, I translate the relevant data: The studies are based on research by Professor Manuel Hernandez and Sigma Dos, a reknown research company in Spain.'

We have the following situation according to Sigma Dos.

A) Averages for 45-64 year-olds.

Males: 1,69 m Females: 1,58 m

b) Averages for the entire population:

Males: 1.73 m Females: 1.61 m

d) Averages for 18-29 year-olds.

Males: 1.77 m Females: 1.64 m

We have the following situation according to Professor Manuel Hernandez.

Males: 1.76 m Females: 1,615 m

Unfortunately Professor Manuel Hernandez does not mention ages. I guess it is for rather younger Spaniards.

Comments please.

HCC.

I'd assume that's the measured height of young spaniards, just by looking at it, but it would be better if we could find out exactly how those values where ascertained.

If you speak Spanish, maybe you could find out? -- rom

Meters to feet conversion

I have realized that the meter to feet conversion in wrong in many cases. I will see to it when I have time. HCC.

Well, I have already corrected from Spain downwards. The conversions were all wrong, I do not know why. I tink from Spain upwards they are all wrong. I will continue some other time. I have used this conversion tool: http://www.worldwidemetric.com/metcal.htm I assume that it is right. HCC.

Lifting weights: not enough information

The article says "...Exercise promotes secretion; however, too much work or anaerobic and muscular development can impede growth or even induce premature cessation, or can induce premature closing of the growth plates (indeed, adolescents who take steroids can experience stunted growth)." After reading this I am left wondering exactly which exercises will and which exercises won't stunt growth. The phrase "too much work or anaerobic and muscular development" is much too ambiguous for the average growing teenager who wants to lifts weights without stunting his growth. How much weight can I lift without stunting my growth? What's considered "too much"? Are certain weight exercises "safe" while others aren't? How old must I be? These are a few of the questions I have that I can't find the answers to. So, if anyone reading this knows the answers, please answer them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Packshack (talk • contribs) 07:25, 10 May 2006.

from my weight training teacher, basically leg weight exercises before 16-18 is a bad move for this reason, you need to have a trainer to make sure your not putting your potential height at risk if your training heavy with weights in your early teens

Original research

I am not going to revert war over this edit, but I disagree strongly with these additions. I appreciate that the edit is trying to add balance to the article, but without reputable sourced supporting evidence, claims such as the following are unencyclopedic: "Clearly, a society of shorter human beings is easier on the earth's resources than a society of larger humans."

I have removed the following claim because it's demonstrably untrue: "The shorter frame has greater acceleration, quickness, agility and coordination" - for example, only one of the five fastest 100 m times was recorded by a sprinter shorter than 5'11", and the current record holders are both over 6'. Regarding the edit summary "When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it", please note that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who wishes the edits to remain. --Muchness 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raw speed is not the same thing as acceleration, agility, coordination and balance. The taller sprinter can generate more torque, and possibly a greater top speed. All things being equal, the shorter sprinter will have the fastest start. Also, there are plenty of shorter humans with excellent raw speed so I am not sure your example means much of anything.Ttzzkk 05:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this section does not use relevant physics to explain its point. Torque applies only to objects that are ROTATING about a center. Running has nothing to do with torque. The only place that torque plays a role in this article is when a person falls, which involves rotation about a center of mass. Inertia and rotational interia are related but not the same thing. I am not editing this section because once all the physics is corrected, the entire section will become irrelevant. --physics graduate student, 29 May 2006

Clearly when one walks or runs the bones in the legs are in rotational motion. This is standard, accepted, well established physics.Ttzzkk 03:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As a mechanical engineer, I feel some of the statements in this article are biased towards short people, saying that short people are faster simply because they have to exert a smaller torque to get their body moving is hardly a physical proof that they have better acceleration. Taking people of the same fitness (muscle to weight, muscle density etc.) while the taller person has to exert more torque to move, the taller person also has more muscle mass and can exert a greater torque in the first place.

Shorter people however are more agile than taller people, but this is not mainly due to less torque required, it is simply because shorter people generally have less mass (the concept of momentum).

Like Muchness, I do not wish to get into arguments about editing the article itself, but I found this section to be particularly unfounded for a wikipedia article and just hope that whoever next edits this section reads my comments. --brett, 17 June 2006

Shorter people have better acceleration, that's without doubt. Remember that taller people with longer legs don't posess enough muscle mass in proportion to their leg length! Muscle force grows disproportionately slower than body mass! Yet it is true that small sprinters have short stride and thus they usually don't excel at distances longer than 60 m. And what about agility, yes, smaller people are more agile, because they have lower center of gravity. Cartouche, 26 July 2006

I'm removing the physics section from the article: it's been tagged for over a month, no sources have been provided, and a number of editors have raised legitimate concerns about this section's validity. --Muchness 03:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, "Orientals" aren't "shorter" than Europeans. From my experience Northern Chinese, Koreans raised on a modern diet are taller than Europeans--even scandinavians.

a doctor who is a friend of mine who speicalisis in glands and growth in children said that if all people of the world had the same dite and lifestyle thier average hieght would be almost the same and not that much differnces

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)

Dinaric Alps

This term is one usually applied to the former Yugoslavia, or atleast the western stretch where these mountains run. In fact it is a misconception to assume that these people are all tall, or in fact so tall everywhere. Only in its southern reaches are the people exceptionally tall, this means Southern Dalmatia, Herzegovina and the Republic of Montenegro with an overflow in Northern Albania (where the population is considered Illyrian and non-Slavic). If we were to talk about a country where there is surely an average close to 1,90cm for males, this can only be the newly independent Montenegro. Herzegovina would have to include Bosnia including Sarajevo and its north where people are of Italian stature, just as in the rest of Croatia outside of its Southern Dalmatian sector where people are mostly short and chunky (like Zagreb). Montenegro by contrast in small with barely half a million people and most of the young people are margianally above Northern European averages. Evlekis 27 May 2006, 10:38

I'd heard murmerings of tall people in these areas before (particularly Montenegro). I had an Italian friend who assured me these were the tallest people in the world. I remained sceptical, I thought they were taller than average at one time in Europes' past (like say Scottish people) and the stereotype had continued to current times. I thought because these areas aren't economically wealthy, they would probably be shorter than most europeans.

Earlier in this discussion page I talked to another guy from the UK who told me that people from Montenegro where extremely tall, he didn't have any concrete statistics though, so it couldn't really be included in the article.

There are many myths in terms of average height, but I'm glad this French study could confirm this interesting statistic. I, too, would like to know what exactly was meant by Dinaric alps (eg the literal region of the mountain range, or a selected area that's commonly referred to as Dinaric Alps which crosses a few borders). And also more about Illyrian people and the diet in these areas. -- r0m

From the full text article: "Pour des raisons d'organisation locale, nous nous sommes limités à la Dalmatie centrale (Split, Sibenik et leurs environs, Drnis, Sinj, Imotski, Vrgorac) et à l'Herzégovine (Mostar, Trebinje, Konjic et leurs environs)." So that's central Dalmatia and Hercegovina. Junes 09:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Health & Height

The article gives the impression that a taller population is healthier than a shorter one. While I do not doubt that this holds truth, it is not true. At least, not if we measure health by life expectancy. Japan, for example, is around 10 cm shorter than the US. Yet the US only has a life expectancy of 77.85 years , compared to Japan's 81.25 . --A Sunshade Lust 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Holds truth ... but is not true. In other words there is a correlation but not a direct proportional relationship. Japan has a longer female life expectancy than the US, the main cause of the difference. There are racial differences in height between the two populations with caucasians and most africans being taller on average than east asians given the same environmental conditions. A better comparison would be comparing Japan's rising height and life expectancy to Japanese height and life expectancy in the past, it would then be easy to see a relationship. Some american populations do live longer than japanese or even okinawans, Seventh day adventist in california have a longer life expectancy than any other group studied, and studies of average SDA height show they are slightly taller than the average population. Now, it's possible that in some circumstances like practicing caloric restriction, that some people say okinawans do traditionally, shortness may be an advantage in longevity. But practically in the real world the relationship is the other way around and men with above average, but not extreme, height live longer than average in any given population. -- r0m

The only sourced evidence relating height and health suggests that loss of stature owing to childhood disease may effect longevity. I am removing this section for as written it is OR. There is no evidence whatsoever that short stature not caused by disease is related to health or longevity.01001 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistake for Spain

Below, copied from the statistics for Spain please observe:

Country| Met. (M) | Met. (F) | Feet (M) | Feet (F) | Group Spain | 170.0 cm | 160.3 cm | 5 ft 6.9 in | 5 ft 3.1 in | a Spain | 169.0 cm | 158.3 cm | 5 ft 7 in | 5 ft 2.9 in | 45-69 (self reported) o

You can see in the first row, the average male height is 170.0 cm in Metric and 5 ft 6.9 inch in feet, how ever in the second row, the average male height is 169.0 cm in Metic and 5 ft 7 inch in feet.

Thatś because they are from different sources.