Talk:Average human height by country/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Spain Measurement needs an update

The reference cited (17-70) clearly states in the cited source that it was boys as young as 12 being measured, it says 1,583 (the number written on the front page is wrong as well) Spanish residents between the ages of 12-70 from different regions were measured. So a study including children, shouldn't be cited as the general average height or should atleast update that statistic to say 12-70. The reference link you have is also dead.

Apples to oranges

In every country in the world university students are taller than general population. So it is a manipulation comparing university students for one country with general population for another country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roltov (talk • contribs) 20:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added new studies more representative of the population and removed a lot of cherrypicked data. Abh9850 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you figure the bookworms are taller? I never heard that one and you didn't support your claim with any studies of your own. I suppose it could be true as such people presumably would have had parents who fed them better than poorer families, maybe....hummm....--2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:78CC:5FC8:8CCE:D0F3 (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Because those "bookworms" typically come from well to do families. That would be my guess. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

General

All this, while interesting, is pretty useless, and potentially misleading, without some measure of variability accompanying each average - e. g., standard deviation. Only an extremely small proportion of any population, normally distributed as height tends to be, is "average", and added variability would paint a much better, if not complete, picture. Suggest columns be added for something like S.D. where it is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

So, the Dinaric Alps entry was already cracking me up, but when I clicked the footnote link and found "Note: Authors added +1 cm to the height mean of the male sample to compensate unfinished growth" I had a laugh that hopefully added at least three months to my life. Then I went to the Talk page and Ctrl+f "Dinaric" yielded nothing. The tentacles of the Dinaric intelligence agencies must truly reach farther and see beyond all others. I, for one, welcome our new Dinaric overlords. Apparently I'll be average height so I guess I'll fit right in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CD80:BA00:B0E4:BD93:6C88:E2A5 (talk) 12:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Conversion

Can we have it so that the conversion from metric to imperial is a bit more precise? I remember when we could get it to quarter-inches, and that's what I want to see, again. Does anyone know how to fix the conversion?

Anyone? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate place to discuss it would be Template talk:Height. Pristino (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe human height, but I still think this is the appropriate place since this is the template where the chance would be made. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why still using imperial? --Cesarakg (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

{{height|cm=177|frac=16}} → 177 cm (5 ft 9+11⁄16 in) or whatever precision you want. Frietjes (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Nederland

It is an open secret that the Netherlandish ("Dutch") data on average human height have been severely corrupted and are even fraudulent: not only have many inhabitants not been included in these data, because, even if they were born in the Netherlands, they do not have the Netherlandish ("Dutch") nationality, but many people of "mixed race" have been taken out of these data as well, in order to satisfy the krypto-NSB (national-socialist!) need to profile themselves as Germanic northern style tall Vikings. People of mixed race not only include "Indo-Europeans" with ties to Indonesia, but also anyone with e.g. one Spanish parent. In addition to this "clean-up" of data on men, the data on women lack complete credibility, because only tall women, who fulfill human height requirements for mostly -but not only- the police and the armed forces, are included.Amand Keultjes (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The description says "Caucasians", unfortunately the amount of Caucasian expats living in my country isn't high enough to grant them a special separate average high. Maybe whoever wrote the text had the American use of the word in mind, but unfortunately, the rest of the World is no the USA and we do not use the same "race" definitions, specially because it wouldn't make too much sense in a continent (Europe) where the Caucasus actually exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runlevel0 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Italy

I noticed the average height of Italians(measured, 2006) are different from Italian Wikipedia, although both data cite same document(Altezza media per sesso e regione per le persone di 18–40 anni, anno 2006, Received from ISTAT 11 Feb. 2009). The English wikipedia says "176/165", whereas the Italian Wikipedia says "175/162".

Because there is no link to this document, I cannot check the original source.

Is there anyone who knows which data is correct?

JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I found the data source referring this data data source. According to this document, The correct data is "174.5/162". So the problem is now resolved. JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Portugal

I found one of the Portuguese data (2008 university students) is controversial because of the following reasons.

1. The sample number is only 10 for each gender. This number is a way too small for representing total population.(It means statistically not meaningful.)

2. The data was not taken by randam sampling. Those data came from one classroom of an university.(It means statistically not meaningful as well.)

3. There is a high possibility of miscalculation. The original data says the average male height is 176cm (max 176cm, min 169cm, and standard deviation 4.8). Even if 9 students were 176cm and 1 student were 169, the average height would be 175cm, and standard deviation would be 2.1. Thus, obviously this data is inaccurate.

Because of those 3 reasons, I think it's better to be erased (I added 2 Portuguese data as replacements). Any thoughts? JordanZaxxon (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone removed this data and there has been no response for few months, so I think this issue is closed.JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

England

Out of curiosity, why is there both a 16-24 and 25-34 age group for England? Usually, when available, we get one age group for the younger generations, and then one that covers all or most adults (18 or 21+). I'd suggest deleting one of the entries, and probably the 16-24 since it includes individuals not yet adults and still growing. Speaking of age groups, it'd also be fairly easy to add a "total/all adults" category for the Netherlands. You'd just have to average all of the stats available. --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree actually - take the higher of all averages. 16 is a bit cruel although I had just about reached my 1.84m by that age - second half of that year. At 16 they haven't really got far to go and you get the impression for how they'll be but there have been cases where individuals have shot up by surprise. I take it the reason both are listed is because both are sourced, so the stats are there regardless for people do take and do what they wish with. But generally I always take the higher figures as average but the UK is nothing exciting with anything you do. The fact that Scotland is taller by about 1cm than England probably suggests that there is a gradual increase among English with south being shortest, growing as you head north. Even then 1cm doesn't make a world of difference and is not obvious. This is why the age difference is also very much along that same level. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

1,776 - figure for England 25-34. Others are secondary in importance. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to include the tallest age groups for each sex and the broadest age groups for both sexes. It would be statistically incorrect to average the height among age groups. Pristino (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I think I may have confused you. What I'm saying is to remove one of the English entries, and then for the Netherlands, keep the one for the youngest generation, but at one for ALL adults simply by averaging all of the adult heights given. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This would allow each nation one entry only. But however you look at it, the results are there subject to research so one place or another they should be included. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

An average of the age group averages is not equal to the average of all the ages considered. This is because the age groups differ in population. You could estimate the population size of each age group (using a different source, for example, the US Census Bureau, also used in this article) and calculate a weighted average, but this might be considered by some to fall under original research. It is doable, but controversial. Pristino (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Height added for the Netherlands for ages 20 and above using a weighted average of the different age groups. Tell me what you think. Pristino (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, it is a good idea to keep data for the tallest age groups of each country. This is why I would not delete the three entries for England. Pristino (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Then there is no reason for the 16-24. It's neither the tallest height, nor the height for the whole adult population, so there is no need for it. Do you understand what I'm trying to convey? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, on your most recent "corrections" I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with you displacing existing data. Unless it's the same source and you're simply updating it, that's one thing, but you've essentially found one report for a few European countries and copying that data over various and different existing entries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

New American Average Heights

I wonder how the following data has escaped Wikipedia's attention so far:

United States: Hispanic/Latino Americans, 20–39 (N= m:385 f:428, Median= m:7.2 ft 0 in (2.19 m) f:300.5 cm (9 ft 10 1⁄2 in))

Especially the over-3m tall Latinas would scare the s**t out of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.48.162 (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Surprised that no one has done this yet, but the upated average heights for the United States were released by the Centers of Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics some time ago (October 2012). The numbers currently in the this page's chart cover the time period of 2003-2006. The current report covers the time period of 2007-2010:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm

The numbers aren't hugely different from the 2003-2006 report or anything, but that the data is more current should be enough to replace the old data. I don't have the time, so whoever's interested can change them when they get the time. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I see no one has changed the data, and the more I think about it, the media doesn't even use the more recent data. I've been told it's because the already small sample size was made even smaller in the 2007-2010, so the data is even more unreliable. I guess that make sense. It was weird to see a "shrinkage", anyway, that did seem statistically significant. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait, why did someone use the 2007-2010 data? I thought it'd been decided we wouldn't use it because the sample size was so small. It was apparently the only thing to explain why the numbers changed so much between the 2003-2006 numbers to these. Someone please revert them until the CDC gets back to making an acceptable sample size. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to the 2007-2010 data. I checked both the 2003-2006 and 2007-2010 CDC anthropometric charts and the 2007-2010 set actually had a larger sample size for both male and female heights of every race. There were 1114 more females and 1165 more males studied in the 2007-2010 report than in the 2003-2006 report. Of course, if there is somewhere else on the CDC anthropometric reports that lists overall sample size that could compromise my information I will happily change the data back to what it used to be to make the page accurate. 104.172.241.64 (talk) 07:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Anonymous

Mexican height and references changed

The following reference has been eliminated because it does not specify which age group or sex, nor the zones of study. http://gaceta.udg.mx/Hemeroteca/paginas/313/G313-6.pdf

General question on the info, but I was surprised to find that 167 cm seems to actually be the average height of Mexican men 18-25 judging by the sources, and was wondering if they break it down by region? I imagine the height averages in the north and south of the country must be incredibly high, because the 167 cm average for the entire country seems awfully low to me. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The source that Sheik07 brought isn't for males around 18-25, it states that the age for the sample of population is from "18 to 69 or even further" wich logically lows the bar, it is also a mirror study of a source already used for the height in Mexico, so there is no point on it being here. Refreshner (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the universitary study, it refers to zones with the largest concentrations of population (Guadalajara, Mexico city and Monterrey) the genre is male (due the article used being the male article) and the age is clearly specified as young (18-26). I used it to complement the country's information about height (the study brought by Sheik07 states that among 18-25 males the height is around 1.72m in the most populated zones too) while the other is used to obtain the height of females and that way get closer to a national average. if anybody wonders why i know so much about the topic, well, it's because the acount Cori26 used to be my wiki acount, but i forgot the password so i had to create a new acount (i hope this don't happens again). once that all this was exlained i'm putting the study back. Refreshner (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You have to read again the CANAIVE study. It states 18-25 years old for 167. Guadalajara and Monterrey dont have the "largest concentrations of population". But that's another subject. The universitary study is invalid since like I said, it does not specify which age group or sex, nor the zones of study. You cannot "imagine" facts, not for studies and such. Besides, the CANAIVE study (mexicanbusinessweb.mx) is the only height-study approved by INEGI Sheik07 (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

References

i might have eplained it clearly on my other response, my fault: the study not only included Guadalajara and Monterrey, it included the Federal Distric aswell, these zones are the most populated zones of the country, the universitary study isn't invalid, in reality is more valid because it is an universitary study and wikipedia favors work produced by universities and other similar high profile institutions, the study was performed on males, already explained why on my response above, the age group is "young adults", this unity is used on the information of various nations (alongside conscripts and others). The other study is meant give insight about the height of females becasue there is not as much information aviable about them as there is on males, i've only found one universitary-quality study performed on females, but was performed on 12-13 year old girls and it averaged 1.55m, maybe we should specify this in a sidenote. Refreshner (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Human height should be expressed in centimetres

The vast majority of sources use centimetres as this is what is commonly used in countries with the metric system. Wikipedia appears to use metres because when the {{height}} template was created it was intended for other structures such as buildings, and never took humans into account. This is long overdue for fixing.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Brazil

I see someone added another entry for Brazil showing men at 177.8 cm, which struck me as fairly tall given the other sources. So, I translated the source, and it seems that particular study only measured 18-year-olds in "major centers." Perhaps, this should be made note of. Perhaps, this might not even belong on the list as I imagine the sample must be quite small. Apparently, the same IBGE study found 172 cm for all 19-year-old men. This seems like quite a margin in a nation as urbanized as Brazil, so the "major centers" measurement must be from the upper class in a few major cities. Even if it's from a large sample across all kinds of socio-economic lines in cities, that's still a smaller sample and measurement than we are used to for this page, which is generally measuring heights on a nation-wide basis. Thoughs? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I reorganized Brazilian data, based on your perspective. --JordanZaxxon (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing countries

Some countries are missing. The Nilotic peoples of Sudan such as the Shilluk and Dinka have been described as some of the tallest in the world. Dinka Ruweng males investigated by Roberts in 1953–54 were on average 1.813 m tall, and Shilluk males averaged 1.826 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.175 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some countries are missing. The Nilotic peoples of Sudan such as the Shilluk and Dinka have been described as some of the tallest in the world. Dinka Ruweng males investigated by Roberts in 1953–54 were on average 1.813 m tall, and Shilluk males averaged 1.826 m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.7.175 (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Estimates

I've noticed that there is a source for some European "estimates" added some time in the past few months. It's really bad enough that we include self-reported height figures on here. There is nothing to be gained from adding something even more amorphous. I'd like to propose that we removed "estimated" heights, particularly for countries which already have other actual measured heights listed. Sure, some of that measured height data is old, but estimates are just to ridiculous a category to have on this page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This is really getting ridiculous. Half of Germany's entries, just as an example, are either self-reported or estimates. When we have actual collected and measured numbers, we should retire the self-reports and estimates, particularly the latter. This page is getting ridiculously cluttered. With a few exceptions, what we need is some consistency, which in my opinion would consist of younger generation height measurement, and a height listing for the entire adult/grown population. The only exceptions should be perhaps additional listing for certain populations within multi-ethnic nations, or nations which contain historical regions which differ in some way from the general population. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you - self-reported numbers are rarely accurate. I'd support the removal of any self-reported data the moment more reliable data becomes available. That said, I'm not sure about having separate numbers for different ethnicities in 'multi-ethnic nations'; At least nationality is a simple way of differentiating between populations. Once you get into ethnicity, the lines of division can easily become confusing and clutter the template even more (for example, Uganda alone has over 11 ethnic groups). A separate template, average height by ethnic group, could be an alternative solution? 206.132.97.4 (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind some of the multi-ethnic nation divides. I'm a littl more concerned about the self-reports, but in some cases, they are the only numbers for a nation. The estimates, however, are glaringly inappropriate and don't belong here. They could be taken out, today, and it wouldn't negatively affect the list. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Then let's do that. 206.132.97.4 (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Where does the "estimate" methodology originate? The Austrian reference European men discusses measured and self-reported. "Estimate" is used only in terms of trends. Perhaps some of this has been deleted too hastily? Jim1138 (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted my edit - you're probably right that we need to check each source for the 'estimated' data to see if it is conjecture and should be removed, or if it simply needs to be relabelled 'self-measured' or 'measured' and left in. I was too hasty in my edits. Thanks 206.132.97.4 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

206.132.97.4 I suspect that most of these numbers would be considered estimates. Wouldn't one have to measure everybody for it not to be an estimate? Often corrections or "tricks" (shades of Michael E. Mann!) are used to improved accuracy. Certain categories of people don't participate as much in experiments and adjustments are used (tricks) to compensate. The whole set of data probably gets run through a complex computer algorithm to generate the "average", "mean", and such. So, I would suspect all the data on the sources would be considered "estimates". Thanks for taking care of this! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, while all of these are technically "estimates" some are definitely more legitimate than others. There are plenty of studies debated on this page over the years that we kept from publishing to this list or deleted after debate when we found that the sample size was too small to be taken seriously. So, while these are all technically estimates, some definitely are better than others and some are so bad that we've kept them off the list. Even the ones we decide to keep we make a distinction between, which is why we have the green highlighted fields for the largest samples. My guess would be that the "estimates" that all came from one source for multiple countries probably has a sample size for each nation too small to be taken seriously as accurate, particularly when we have far better sources for most of these nation's individually. I would not at all mind seeing this particular source kept off the list. Perhaps it could be used as a fact on the human height page, but I'm not sure it belongs on this list. Just my two centers. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sample size determination. The estimate is greatly complicated by the population not being homogeneous and likelihood that certain groups are less willing participate. So, a large sample population does not guarantee accuracy. Jim1138 (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, but an inordinately small(er) sample is far more likely to give you inaccuracy. Let's not get cute, here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't find Wiki guidelines that address issues like sample size or methodology. I guess going through the entries marked 'estimate' one-by-one and judging: a) if the source is reliable b) if the methodology is scientific c) if there is a better alternative source - would be an option. And following these guidelines 206.132.97.4 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, actually it was me who changed the expression from "Measured" to "Estimates", just because the referred data was not measured height but the adjusted self-reported height by subtracting numbers slightly. I did it when I checked each citation source used on this page, because several data looked different from original sources. Apology for the confusion caused by my edit.

I'm not against to clean up the page, But I think it is still useful to have self-reported and measured data of a same nation. It's because not many countries carrying out surveys about measured height, and I think self-reported height is better to be compared to self reported height (in addition, we can see the trend of over-reporting height of each nation). But, yes we can erase less accurate and less important data.

About another topic (which type of multiple data can one nation have?), I think I'm going to add a new section.

JordanZaxxon (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Average overall height column?

We have a column for average male height, and one for the average female height, but should we have a column for the average overall height? That would give us a quick and easy way of seeing an entire population's average height, instead of having to compare male or female heights with each other, when stature ratios are a variable. What do you think about an overall height column, based on finding the average of the male+female heights for each nation? 206.132.97.4 (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if it's needed or not. but I'm not against the idea if other people agree with it.

JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Which type of multiple data can one nation have? (and possible cleanup)

As you can see, many listed countries here have multiple data of their average height. But is there any guideline of which data should be and should not be included? If not, maybe we can discuss about the rule so that we can clean up the list a little bit. Here is the list of major type of the average height here.

1. Measured height
2. Self-reported height
3. Estimated height
4. Height by region (urban, rural, city, north, central, south etc)
5. Height by ethnic (black, hispanic, white etc)
6. Height by age (18,20,30,70 etc)
7. Height by year of survey (1995, 2000, 2005, etc)
8. Height by social group (university student, upper middle class etc)
9. Height in the same category by media or survey

I personally think as long as the data is significant and reliable enough, it's alright to be shown here except No.7 and No.9 (in this case, the most reliable and newest data should be chosen). Some countries have noticeable differences in those topics above, and such data can be useful. But it's just my opinion. JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Old Istat data

I've uploaded the most recent ISTAT data for Italy (Cacciari et al. (2006)). There is no need in posting old outdated data from the '90s.

Data you posted were measured in 1994 but published only in 2006.

Joeyc91 (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess this message is a response to me. I'm not against the deletion of the older data, but the new data(I assume the one below the data you deleted) doesn't contain female height. I checked the original source, but the cited page was only talking about male height. Can you find the completed data? Then you can delete the old one (or I can do it for you). Otherwise we had better leave the old data for those who want to check the female height.

JordanZaxxon (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A proposal for applying different colored letters

I have an idea to distinguish between measured and other height data. How about using another color for letters in rows for non-measured height?

It will look like a following list.

Mali – Southern Mali	171.3 cm (5 ft 7+1⁄2 in)	160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)	1.07	Rural adults (N= m:121 f:320, SD= m:6.6 f:5.7)	—	Measured	1992
Malta	169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)	159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)	1.06	18+	94.8%	Self-reported	2003
Malta	175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)	163.8 cm (5 ft 4+1⁄2 in)	1.07	25–34	16.5%	Self-reported	2003

I think this change will make people visually understand the difference between measured and non-measured data (and not disturbing so much to see the list). But before applying this change, I want to ask other people if this change is ok or not.

I will apply this change one week later, if there are no oppositions. Please let me know if you find any problems. Thanks.

JordanZaxxon (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I applied the new stylesheet anyway, since there have been no oppositions for one week. Thanks JordanZaxxon (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup candidates

I find the following data are not necessary to be shown here.

1. New Zealand 19–45 (Estimates) (This data is estimated from average height of British adults. There is already New Zealanders' measured height.)
2. New Zealand 45–60 (Estimates) (This data is estimated from average height of British adults. There is already New Zealanders' measured height.)
3. Russia 1992 (a bit outdated. I already added recent data, so it shouldn't be a problem to delete this.)
4. Switzerland 2005 (There is more recent conscription data on the list.)

I will delete them one week later, if there are no oppositions. Please let me know if you find any problems. Thanks. JordanZaxxon (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I deleted them since there have been no oppositions for one week. Thanks JordanZaxxon (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Share of pop. over 15 covered

I'd like to fill missing data for this column with using the cited International Data Base. But before my edit, I'd like to ask other people if it's no problem to change the definition to "over 18 covered" or not. It's because people aged 15-17 haven't fully grown up yet, and also they are not regarded as adult in general. So I just found it's pointless to include those boys and girls.

I will wait for a week for any responses. Then I will edit this page (including recalculation of existing data). Please let me know if you are against the change. Thanks JordanZaxxon (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree about "over 18", but what missing data are you talking about, and are there currently any country listings with children in them? If not, what exactly are you talking about? I'm a bit confused. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement. The data on this column seem to be calculated with the aids of this page. So I meant many countries with 'N/A' can be also listed with the calculated population shares, which I called as "missing data". Sorry for my confusing explanation. JordanZaxxon (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

References

I made the changes since there have been no oppositions for one week. Thanks JordanZaxxon (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing Pakistan

I noticed that Pakistan is missing from this list. Is that because of a lack of available information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.38.234.69 (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of average human height worldwide. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130513101008/http://msal.gov.ar/htm/site/ennys/pdf/ENNyS_Documento-de-resultados-2007-II.pdf to http://msal.gov.ar/htm/site/ennys/pdf/ENNyS_Documento-de-resultados-2007-II.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110312040633/http://www.redsalud.gov.cl/portal/url/item/99c12b89738d80d5e04001011e0113f8.pdf to http://www.redsalud.gov.cl/portal/url/item/99c12b89738d80d5e04001011e0113f8.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130920032015/http://www.ifth.org/innovation-textile/upload/Image/DossierdePresse-IFTH-CNM-5-70ans.pdf to http://www.ifth.org/innovation-textile/upload/Image/DossierdePresse-IFTH-CNM-5-70ans.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://personal.lse.ac.uk/sear/pdfs/anthrops%20and%20adult%20mortality.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food/fnb23-4.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crc.gov.my/publications/documents/Journal/Distribution%20of%20body%20weight,%20height%20and%20BMI%20in%20national%20sampl.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It mentions only europe as tall

Racism in my opinion. update the graphs,there is NO chance in the world that only europe is tall while or the others are short. u can see it everywhere. the situation is that the height is more or less the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.85.233 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall global average?

Maybe I missed it, but after searching and manually scanning I don't see a global overall average that would indicate the mean height of the entire human race as a whole. To me this is an integral part of a "list of average human height worldwide". GlassDeviant (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Such a number would depend on how you weighed the numbers. Do we calculate the mean height using each country mean? Do we weigh countries by their population? What about countries with poor data, do we weigh that less to the extent we are uncertain about the numbers? --Deleet (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We use each countries population obviously. Why would we ignore the population? How is it the world average for height if we ignore the population of each country.

Poor data of a few countries doesn't matter when we are looking at average human height. How far off do you think that poor data can be? 10cm? No way. A few countries wont have any meaningful effect on the result. 2A01:6F01:B508:F200:4577:92EF:5724:2499 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

New worldwide height dataset

Since this article was written, a new very comprehensive worldwide human height dataset has been published. So if someone has the time, it is probably a good idea to update this list. --Deleet (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of average human height worldwide. 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/20120816023627/http://www.menshealth.de/sixcms/media.php/37/Mens_Health_Fettatlas_2008.pdf to http://www.menshealth.de/sixcms/media.php/37/Mens_Health_Fettatlas_2008.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crc.gov.my/publications/documents/Journal/Distribution%20of%20body%20weight%2C%20height%20and%20BMI%20in%20national%20sampl.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crc.gov.my/publications/documents/Journal/Distribution%20of%20body%20weight%2C%20height%20and%20BMI%20in%20national%20sampl.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crc.gov.my/publications/documents/Journal/Distribution%20of%20body%20weight%2C%20height%20and%20BMI%20in%20national%20sampl.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crc.gov.my/publications/documents/Journal/Distribution%20of%20body%20weight%2C%20height%20and%20BMI%20in%20national%20sampl.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080421034031/http://www.beliefnet.com/politics/religiousaffiliation.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorting error

When sorting by male height in reverse order, malta and chile (green) and ghana, sichuan and malaysia (white) are below mexico when it should be reversed. I am not sure how to fix this. Alex the Nerd (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

46.99.63.213 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Dear all, I am interested to know about the Kosovar's population the tall average of male and female... best regards

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2017

Please add the sizes for Ecuador: MALE 1.64 5' 4.25" FEMALE 1.54 5' 0.5" Harleyrjacome (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of average human height worldwide. 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/20170208114205/http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php to https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/papers/downloads/1002.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moh.gov.bh/PDF/survey/nut_survey1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924021915/http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-11.aspx to http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-11.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924021915/http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-11.aspx to http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-11.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419180610/http://www.scsport.gov.cn/do/bencandy.php?fid=47&id=4358 to http://www.scsport.gov.cn/do/bencandy.php?fid=47&id=4358
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227073812/http://diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/magmng/pdf/6079.pdf to http://diglib.tums.ac.ir/pub/magmng/pdf/6079.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110107225902/http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/productivebenefits to http://www.econ.yale.edu/~pschultz/productivebenefits
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304151607/https://secure.gov.mt/nso/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=573 to https://secure.gov.mt/nso/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=573
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224032613/http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/spm/v48n2/29722.pdf to http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/spm/v48n2/29722.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

The Human Height From El Salvador. The male is 169 cm is a recently date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odirmex (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2018

The Netherlands are the tallest people now. The data is pretty old, and there is new data. The tallest men are The Netherlands, and women are Latvia. 82.73.205.120 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:TRIVIA & WP:NOTSTATSBOOK Spintendo ᔦᔭ 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

 Not done: While the information you've provided regarding the height of Dalian people living in the Liaoning Province is varied and perhaps thorough at first glance, there are questions over the information's ultimate provenance, as the website itself suggests: "本页面呈现之信息，如无特别注明的，均来源于网页搜索结果，中国搜索呈现这些内容之目的在于传递更多信息，并不代表本网赞同其观点和证实其真实性" (translated: "The information presented on this page, if not specifically noted, comes from web search results. The purpose of presenting these contents in China search is to convey more information. It does not mean that this website agrees with its opinions and confirms its authenticity.") In any event, your request also does not specify which information is to be added, and if any information is to be removed. Please clarify with more concrete references to be used and which specific data ought to be added.   SPINTENDO          04:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2018

When you sort by average male (or female) height it sorts right the whole part of number but then sorts the floats before the integers. Example: Heights 43, 43.5, 44, 44.1, 44.5 Will be sorted in this order: 43.5, 43, 44.1, 44.5, 44

However there is a diference between 44 and 44.0. Probably because 44 is an int and 44.0 is a float. So you can get more consistent results with that which is shown in another example: Heights 43.0, 43.5, 44, 44.1, 44.5 Will be sorted in this order: 43.0, 43.5, 44.1, 44.5, 44

My request is to solve this problem by replacing all integers with floats to make consistent sorting or even better fix the sorting of floats and ints. Now that I think about it the sorting engine might treat the numbers as a text (string), so "fixing the engine" might really not be an option.

Thanks! 94.142.239.250 (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This anomaly appears to come form the underlying wikitable sortable tag, which is probably better addressed at Module talk:Wikitable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

theguardian

I found an information for some countries that is not in this list https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jul/26/tall-story-men-and-women-have-grown-taller-over-last-century-study-shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.181.188.218 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Chinese Height Data

Found some interesting data

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5234427269

n=physical examination of all high school students

Taian, Shandong, 2011, n=3390, 17-18 y/o boys, 176.97cm

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5164132012

n=physical examination of all high school students

Urban Yantai, Shandong, 2014, 20-24 y/o men, 176.58 cm

https://imgur.com/a/5CMrVbF

n=physical examination of all high school students

Qingdao, Shandong, 2015, 18 y/o men, 176.75cm

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5872455531

n=physical examination of all high school students

17 y/os in Beijing, 2017, 175.7cm

18 y/os in Beijing Urban Area + Inner City, 2015, 176.1cm

18 y/o's in Beijing Inner City, 2015, 177.0cm

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5277540188

Shanghai, 2015, n=197, 17 y/o Han Chinese boys, 175.0cm

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5334194954

Shenyang, Liaoning, 2016, 17-18 y/o Han Chinese boys, n=100, 176.2cm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukai Shogo (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/a/mhyyxeV

Heilongjiang, provincewide, 2015, 19-22 y/o Han Chinese, 176.1cm / a subset of the data used here (http://hlj.sina.com.cn/news/m/2015-04-12/detail-iavxeafs5143422-p2.shtml) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukai Shogo (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

https://tieba.baidu.com/p/5684855364

Guangdong, 2016, n=1000, 20-29 y/o Guangdong men, 170.7cm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukai Shogo (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

These are all from wealthy regions of China in which people are relatively taller. I thought it seemed odd that the average height in China is so high. Johnotm (talk) 06:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 Oct 2018

Can we include NCD Risk Factor Collaboration ( http://www.ncdrisc.org/about-us.html )? They do have a pretty comprehensive data set and work with data from official sources. http://www.ncdrisc.org/downloads/height/NCD_RisC_eLife_2016_height_age18_countries.csv I am surprised to see so many old and imprecise entries. Estimates about Italy in the '80s ; Bulgarian data is from a sensationalist newspaper article that doesn't cite its sources; these are put along conscripts measurements data from this decade as if they are comparable. Why are these in the same spreadsheet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itzkin (talk • contribs) 09:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone Deleted Bhutan

The title says it all. Someone deleted Bhutan from the list. --184.101.209.164 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed Errors

The whole page is filled with errors, incorrect data, misreported studies and very out-dated papers (some from 1980). I've fixed a lot of the studies and added a lot of recent ones with big sample sizes. Abh9850 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

United States

Why was the 20-39 age group removed for the United States? And why is the 20+ category using the old 2011-2014 data when we clearly have the other data available? Here is is: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr122-508.pdf

Someone please do these fixes. I wouldn, but I'm not sure hot to calculate some of the numbers needed in the table. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Introduction

I was wondering if anyone else had any suggestions regarding the introduction, I was thinking to move the section about accuracy from the introduction and put it under its own heading as it does not really fit with the theme of introduction, and is rather long. If no one has any concerns or suggestions I will implement this change to the article --Hodgeydoger (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC) Have made above changes to this article --Hodgeydoger (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2019

Dr.Apolonidis (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

| Croatia || 180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in) || 166.49 cm (5 ft 5+1⁄2 in) ...please change the data for the average height of the croats in male from 1.80cm to 1.83cm and for female from 1.66cm to 1.68cm .. Here is the source : https://peerj.com/preprints/3388.pdf

Your study seems to only be measuring Croats from a specific region, the one the article cites seems to measure overall. – Þjarkur (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

United States

Who exactly is the "United States" section about? I see several sections after it specifying racial minorities, but the first section just says "United States". If this is meant to be white people, why does it not say "United States - whites" or "United States - Caucasians"? 65.60.143.94 (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Because it's for all Americans. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It is for all Americans. The average height for White is 5'10" https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf 194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Urban

change ((Urban)) to ((Urban area|Urban)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:613d:302d:40f7:8728 (talk • contribs)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Spain update.

Here is a 2008 scientific study of body height in Spain: Adult males 177,33 and female 163,96/ It Also contains detailed information of how body height continues to increase in Spain at a rapid pace, with different ages. It contains also weight information, etc. Very complete. Please add. Here you have some links to the same article:

file:///C:/Users/SALEE/Downloads/S1695403308702054.pdf

[Spanish cross-sectional growth study 2008. Part II. Height, weight and body mass index values from birth to adulthood].

most common race is not the same as anthropometrically median face-drawing of some imaginary person (median anthropometric measurements) / many people confuse these two

We need more relative pages.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

Please change the part about the danish height, because it is incorrect, and the women are 167,2 cm http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-men-fifth-tallest-in-the-world.html 83.136.91.75 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi protected edit, Romania

Please change the height of Romania; the source used currently is not reliable and is outdated (it's a press article from 2007, which refers to an undated and uncited study). According to this study [1] (from 2014) cited by Euronews here [2], Romanian men have an average height of 174,7 cm and Romanian women 162,7 cm. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5416 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Can't find in writing in either of the sources you linked. Aasim 09:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

For the Euronews source just click on the map on the desired country (there are 2 maps, one for men, the other for women), and you see the height. For the study, there are several figures there.2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5AA3 (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Outdated for some countries

Is it really acceptable to use very old data for some countries (ie.1950–1974 for Gambia, 1970 for Bolivia, the 1980s for several others), while for some countries the data is very recent (2017)? More effort should be made to update the table where possible, because that table is meant to be a comparison between countries and regions, and show the global variations in height, and it's well researched that human height has increased throughout the years, in most places. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:5AA3 (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

People update the information all the time as new information becomes available. Some countries - particularly less wealthy ones - haven't been able to do any kind of population studies for decades. If you find information, you can always feel free to add it as everyone else does. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)