Talk:Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Colors

Could we get some better colors, specifically some that have higher contrast? Also, remember that fully color-blind people can only see shades of grey (...or is it gray? I hate that word.), and that those colors are very similar in shade.

Would be thrilled to update, just don't know what colors I good. I dug around some color-checkers and ended up a great deal more baffled than when I started. Any ideas? jengod 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming Election

Can we add a section for the upcoming election. I think Rudy Giuliani is about 5'9", Hillary Clinton about 5'7" and Barack Obama about 6'1", but these are just estimates. 86.139.60.204 23:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Article was sabotaged on 7/2/2008

Someone changed the words "tall" and "taller" to the words "short" and "shorter" and vice-versa in several places in the article, even changing all of the quotes. I realize that an article about the heights of the presidents and candidates is not of earth-shattering importance, but it's annoying that someone did this. Can a url be blocked? I believe I've reversed all of the changes, but the same person has done lots of editing in other articles. ReaderReader5 (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 election update

The references for Obama's height should be retained as there's still no consensus on his exact height. Also the metric conversions for both him and John McCain need to be fixed. Wcp07 (talk) 07:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vice-Presidents

Do we have any data for the heights of US Vice-Presidents? Wcp07 (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

McCain

is mccain really 5'6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.204.166 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is. 24.23.48.119 (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. 76.20.18.25 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed, but probably inaccurate. The medical records may just be an estimate. Look at the pictures of McCain next to Nixon and Giuliani and he looks taller. He is more likely 5'7" to 5'8". Check out these pictures:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/Nixon_greets_POW_McCain.jpg

http://media.commercialappeal.com/mca/content/img/photos/2008/01/31/1gop.jpeg

Christidy (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this McCain's height is 175.3 cm or about 5'9" (on p 7) . That would make sense of photos like this, where he's nearly level with the 180 cm Bush (this YouTube clip also shows him nearly level with Bush [at 0'38]). Celebheights believes reports that his height is 168 cm or 5'6" are suspect. Wcp07 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, medical records are the best source, even if we don't believe them, which I don't.--Loodog (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

William Jennings Bryan

This says that William Jennings Bryan's height was "about 5 feet 10 inches", not 6 feet as is currently listed. Do we have any other sources for Bryan's height? If not, I propose we change his height. That's going to affect the taller/shorter outcome for 1908 Wcp07 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information

Normally, if there is wrong information, the editor removes or corrects it. However, there is an entire section that is wrong.

Taller man wins? section is wrong. Rather than eliminate it, consider modifying it. I don't want to OR (original research) so someone help me. In short, the section could read:

Multiple sources have proposed that the tallest candidate of the major political party will win the election (then quote many of the bullets as sources).

Note that John Kerry was taller than George Bush and Gerald Ford was taller than Jimmy Carter.

What probably is the case is the taller/handsome man wins. This is because Jimmy Carter, despite his bad teeth, looked better than dinosaur Ford but not as good as Reagan. Kerry looks a bit funny compared to Bush, even if you dislike Bush. However, this paragraph is OR so it can't get into Wikipedia, thank heavens!User F203 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GEORGE WASHINGTON

Washington was at least 6'3", according to every source except Ron Chernow. "George Washington was measured for his clothing at 74 inches in height, or 6'2". Though he complained that his clothes were too small. After his death, he was measured at 6'3" and 1/2 inches tall in his stocking feet. The average height of a man in the 18th century was around 5'7.5", so he was indeed a tall man. George Washington was also of an athletic, powerful build. Also known to have very large hands and feet, blue eyes and reddish brown hair.

Ron Chernow, in his new book Washington: A life, claims Washington be be 6' even. He bases this assumption on orders Washington placed in which he asks for clothing for a man of 6 feet high. However, Washington never seemed satisfied with his clothing and constantly complained that the legs are too short. In addition, we know Thomas Jefferson to be 6' 2 and 1/2" tall and George Washington was known to be taller than Jefferson. As Benjamin Franklin said, (who himself was 6 feet tall) of Washington, 'He was always the tallest man in the room.'" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_tall_is_George_Washington — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlameHorse (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

notabiltiy

this article is nothing but WP:TRIVIA what is enecyclopaedically notable about warranting an article such as this. And EL on the presidentas page would be plenty (anddoubtful there too).(Lihaas (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)).

I think the article is more than just trivia. The belief that the taller presidential candidate has an advantage in elections is widespread, as evidenced by the numerous sources on this issue the article brings up. Whether height actually does play a role in presidential politics is a separate issue, but the fact that it is believed to play one is certainly notable. There are also issues of heightism involved here. Wcp07 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading the three archived deletion discussions (linked at the top of this talk page), it is safe to assume that many (if not most) Wikipedia editors consider this article both notable and verifiable. As such, I am removing both tags from the article mainspace. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pointless

Is this possibly the most pointless article on Wikipedia? 4kinnel 15:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, I kind of like it 12.177.23.62 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You did go through the trouble of finding it.--Loodog (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

look up "No u", i found this article by using the random function :3 --84.202.250.163 (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Photos prove the list is wrong

Some photos prove de list is not correct. My points in particular:

• Barack Obama appears to be taller than Bill Clinton in several images: Image 1; Image 2; Image 3. Obama is likely 188cm and Clinton 185cm.

• Ronald Reagan is shorter than Gerald Ford: Image 1, Image 2. I watched recently a documentry on TV in which Ford stood next to Lyndon Johnson, Ford appeared only little shorter than Johnson.

Jerchel (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Obama and Clinton, it's possible that Clinton's height has decreased with old age. Since the height of each President ideally should be their height at the time when they were in office, Clinton's height of 188 cm could well be accurate for 1992 but not so much for today.

Re Gerald Ford, it's possible he's taller than the 6'0"/183 cm he's listed as; I've seen him listed as 6'1"/185 cm in at least one other source. If we change his height, however, we should attribute his new height to a reliable source. Using photos can cause inaccurate height estimations, as the angle of the shot, the unevenness of the ground and the types of shoes that people are wearing can all affect how they measure up against one another. Wcp07 (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag discussion -- where is it?

This article is tagged for potential NPOV, but this discussion page does not seem to have a discussion specifically regarding what is non-neutral. I propose the tag should either be removed, or the editor who applied the tag amplify the reasons here, in this subsection. Reasonable? JoGusto (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It's been a month since the tag was placed, and there has still been no discussion concerning any neutrality problems in the article. I will wait another week, and if still nothing has been raised, I will remove the tag. Wcp07 (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research

I am not sure if a statistical analysis of the correlation between heights and electoral success belongs on Wikipedia. While simple, it does seem to comprise original research. I tagged the relevant section. This point remains open to discussion. Vigormaster (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

On the table showing the presidential elections by height, Theodore Roosevelt is just thrown into the table as an opposing canidate with his height info. Fix please? 71.180.171.44 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The 1912 presidential election was technically a three-way race, which eventually saw Roosevelt, a third party candidate from the Progressive Party, coming in second behind Wilson - and ahead of the incumbent, Taft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MishaKeats (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The currrent article title is very odd

"Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States" is one of the strangest article titles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. ;) The phrase "presidential candidates of the United States" within the title just doesn't make sense. IMO, the most logical title would be "Heights of United States presidents and presidential candidates". Can we change it? Thanks! --76.189.110.167 (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) 19:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's height - Again

I've always remembered Clinton as being taller than George H.W. Bush, and this Washington Post article appears to support my imperfect memory. As does this image (note that Clinton is easily 3 inches taller than the 5'11.5" George W. Bush).
I think Clinton is a strong 6'2.5" - perhaps even a weak 6'3". I'll wait for a week before making any edits.
Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're confused Misha. Regarding Clinton and George H.W. Bush, this article and the Washington Post story you linked to both say they are 6'2". The WP story does not say that Clinton is taller than H.W. And the photo you linked to verifies that they're the same height. And the photo also shows Clinton to be about almost 3 inches taller than George W. Bush, but not more. (George W. Bush is leaning a little bit to his right in the photo.) A few sources add or subtract a 1/2 inch from the height of Clinton and George W. Bush., but this article has them at 6'2" and 5'11.5", which is what most sources say. Anyway, regarding Clinton and George H.W. Bush, the WP article you linked to says, "In 1992 Clinton's aides said he was 6 feet 2 1/2 inches tall. That year he beat George Bush, who was 6-2.". Then it says, "None of this ever received the media attention it deserved, but in 1993, once Clinton was safely in office, his doctor reported he was only 6-2. In 1994, the report of his annual physical said he was 6-2 1/2. In 1995, he was back to 6-2." So the bottom line is that Clinton and H.W. are both 6'2". It sounds like the doctors went back and forth on Clinton's height, probably because he's actually 6'2.25", so sometimes they rounded down to 6'2" and sometimes they rounded up to 6'2.5" because they don't do quarter inches. My own doctor's office has been going back and forth on my height for many years; sometimes they include the 1/2 inch, sometimes they don't. Anyway, no edits need to be made to their heights. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that I'm not confused even in the slightest, mate. The WP article on Clinton specifically mentioned, "in 1994, the report of his annual physical said he was 6-2 1/2." Further, in the photograph, George H.W. Bush was slightly shorter than Obama, who is 6'1" (granted age may have something to do with it). In addition, I would like to draw your attention to this report. In case you do not have access to Highbeam, please allow me to quote three pertinent passages concerning George W. Bush.

"The president's six-hour physical was performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital by 14 doctors before Bush flew to Texas for a month-long stay at his ranch."

"A six- page medical statement signed by the doctors said Bush "is in outstanding health and is fit for duty."

"Bush is 72 inches tall without his shoes and weighed 189.75 pounds, down from 194.5 pounds at his physical last year. His body fat is 14.5 percent, down from 19.94 percent last year. His blood pressure was 118 over 74, and his total cholesterol was 170, both within normal ranges."

Not only does this indicate that George W. Bush is in fact, a six footer, it also indirectly dismisses the notion that Clinton is 6'2". So I am now proposing two edits on the page - for George W. Bush and Clinton.
--Misha Atreides (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misha, you began this discussion by making the claim that Clinton is taller than H.W., and that the WP article and photo you linked to prove it. But they do not. What the WP article says is that it was orginally Clinton's aides who claimed he was 6'2.5", but then when he had three physicials, the doctor's reports for them said he was 6'2" (1993), 6'2.5" (1994) and then back to 6'2" (1995). There are also three current sources in the article's listing for Clinton that say he's 6'2". Curiously, in your second comment, you only quoted the part about the 1994 measurement showing 6'2.5" (which I already had quoted), but chose to leave out the 1993 and 1995 measurements that said he's 6'2". If you're going to present quotes that address height, present all of them, not just the ones that support your own position.
• You also now make the claim that the photo you linked to shows Obama as being taller than H.W., but IMO it does not show that at all. To me, the photo clearly shows H.W. to be about one-inch taller than Obama, which is perfectly in line with their stated heights in this article and the current sources. H.W. is 6'2" and Obama is 6'1". In any case, we do not use photos to make these determinations because they can be misleading based on where and how someone is positioned.
• You also presented a new claim in your second post: that George W. Bush is 6'0", not 5'11.5" as the article states. Your source about his 2001 physical does indeed say he's 72" (6'0"), but the two more current sources in this article (about his 2006 and 2007 physicals) do not; they both say "Height: 71.50 inches (without shoes)" (5'11.5").[1][2] So your one source is not enough to overturn the two current sources.
• Btw, all the info you presented about how long the physical took, how many doctors performed it, and all the other info unrelated to height (body fat, BP, cholesterol, etc.) are irrelevant. Our only concern here is height. Also, measuring someone takes a matter of seconds by one person. It didn't take 14 doctors six hours to measure George W. Bush.
• Again, I say that no edits are warranted. Unless you find clear evidence that outweighs the current sources, and achieve consensus. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

♦ Stranger, I find you opposition to the facts most unsettling. I've provided facts to all of my points (which fits my personal recollection, I might add), and you've countered them with your opinions. I thank you for these opinions, and I will take them under consideration while I continue to wait for feedbacks from other editors for another six days. Barring any new facts, I plan to make these edits.
I do not want to repeat myself, or dissect your opinions, so I will just address your final point. The reason I included the extra passages, which I thought was obvious, was to highlight the fact that 14 medical doctors conducted George W. Bush's physical, and signed his medical report, which also stated his height. I think that, in itself, settles the matter. Surely these medical professionals have no reason to collude with Bush's political agenda or public image? --Misha Atreides (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
♦ Stranger, I can't keep up with your edits. I'll check back in a few hours to see if you've brought up anything new to respond to.--Misha Atreides (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• What did George W. Bush's 2006 and 2007 physicals say his height was? Answer: 5'11.5". Those are the two current sources in the article. I am perplexed as to why you are ignoring these facts. Yes, you provided one source that says he's 6'0", but that was seven years before the other two sources which both say he's 5'11.5". Those are facts, not opinions.
• And what I've stated are indeed facts based on the sources, not opinions. By saying that you do not want to address (dissect) my counterpoints indicates that you are not interested in having a meaningful discussion about the issues at hand. If that's the case, there's no point in continuing this. And the thing is, I have actually presented all the facts relating to height in the various sources. You, on the other hand, have only presented selected information from those sources and left out parts that do not support your position. Why did you quote about Clinton's height in the 1994 report, but not in the 1993 and 1995 reports? One would clearly have to wonder why you are doing that?
• Again, the fact that 14 doctors, or even 100 doctors, signed his report is completely irrelevant. First, 14 doctors didn't measure him. (How many people measure you when you go for an exam? And how long does it take?) Second, you're again ignoring the fact that 14 or so doctors also did his exams in 2006 and 2007, yet those reports say he is 5'11.5".
• The only opinion involved here is looking at that photo and judging who looks taller than whom. But you presented the photo, not me. And it shows Clinton and H.W. to be the same height, and George W. Bush approximately 3 inches shorter than them. In any case, it doesn't matter because I'm sure you understand that we do not use photos in this way to determine encylopedic content. Photos can be very misleading based on how or where someone stands.
• If you had strong evidence to support your claims and overturn the current sources, I would be happy to agree with your edit proposals. But you do not. I'm sorry. You cannot make any of these edits without strong sources that outweigh the article's current sources, nor without consensus. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

♦ Goodness. It is so hard to respond to you with your repeated edits. Anyway, are you serious here? 2001 to 2006 represents an additional five years of aging. It is a scientific fact (1, 2) that you lose your height as you age. The fact that I do not wish to engage/dissect your opinions are far from "not interested in having a meaningful discussion about the issues at hand." I just have no interest in trying to argue with your opinions, or your cherry picking of facts. You've demonstrated that opinion-making streak again with your amazing behind-the-scene analysis of how the medical examination of Bush took place, or the irrelevancy of how many doctors signed his medical report. Stick to the facts, and you will have me here all day. In addition (once again, seriously?), no one here wants to use the photo as a reference or to determine the height of these men. It was merely used for comparison/illustrative purpose; surely, surely, you realize that? Moreover, it is not the quantity of the references that matter - it's the verifiability

♦ On a final note, I've found yet another reference on Clinton's height. This time, it's from Pulitzer-winning journalist Bob Woodward, who spent one and a half years in the Clinton White House to research his book, The Agenda. Thisis from page 3 of the book.

"He moved quietly, looking relaxed, a large man, 6 feet 3, with a mop of thick, graying hair that took some of the edge off his boyish self-assurance."

Please take a step back, and relax. You've made your objections clear, and I know nothing I say will change your mind. But don't hijack the thread. If will discourage others from participating if it gets too long - unless of course, you have something new to add? --Misha Atreides (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Misha, I would ask that you please act in a civil manner. Saying things such as "relax," "You've demonstrated that opinion-making streak again" and "don't hijack the thread" are not civil. You are posting comments directly to me and I will therefore reply to them. I am simply presenting comments based on the sources you provided and the ones that are contained in this article. You cited only the 1994 Clinton height report, whereas I cited the 1993, 1994 and 1995 reports. You also posted the 1999 source showing George W. Bush's height, but did not mention the 2006 and 2007 reports which showed a different height. These actions show that you the one who is actually cherry-picking, not me. I have acknowledged everything that all the sources state. You continue to claim I am making "opinions," but again have chosen not to specifically identify which of my comments you are referring to. The only "opinion" is trying to judge heights in that photo you presented for editors to look at. You gave your opinion that "Clinton is easily 3 inches taller than the 5'11.5" George W. Bush", and I therefore gave my opinion, which disagreed. But as you now acknowledge, we cannot use photos to decide height content. So it's moot. All I have done is read the sources you provided, plus the article's sources, and simply state what they say. Do you believe that Woodward's one claim of Clinton's height is more reliable than Clinton's multiple doctor reports? By the way, the scientific fact of people losing height as they age in no way whatsoever proves that George W. Bush lost height from 2001 to 2006. Is that what you're claiming... that he lost a half-inch of height in those five years? If so, do you have sourced evidence that says he lost height during those five years? If not, it's totally irrelevant. We can only enter verifiable content based on reliable sources. The article's current sources do indeed support the heights given. If you want to encourage other opinions, you can start an RfC. If reliable sources and consensus supports your proposals, then the edits can certainly be made. But you cannot simply delete current, reliable sources that support the heights given in the article. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you actually believe that GWB lost height during his presidency, are you also saying that all the other presidents lost height during their time in office? If so, then every president on the list should have more than one height listed. In any case, the 2006 and 2007 physicals state the same height (5'11.5"). It doesn't matter why he was that height; only that he actually was that height. We don't deal in speculation when we write content for this encylopedia. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Stranger, I find your comment amusing, considering your own earlier patronizing remarks. Be that as it may, I don't plan on responding to you again. I fear my initial assumption of good faith have been taken advantage of. I'm not on any deadline, and I feel six days is more than enough time to solicit the opinions of other editors. Feel free, however, to start an RfC if you so desire. Good day. --MishaKeats (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I only want what's best for the article and it has never been my intention to be patronizing. Again, you have made an accusation without specifically identifying which of my comments substantiate it. Btw, continually calling me "Stranger" and saying my comments are "amusing" are also things I believe others would consider patronizing. All my comments on this issue are based on the sources you provided, plus the article's sources. Since you are the one that started this discussion and wants to change sourced content, you should also be the one to start an RfC. Either way, you will need reliable sources and consensus before removing the current content. I'd be happy to support you if you can provide this, but you cannot do it unilaterally. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's stick solely to what sources say...

Sources currently used in the article:

• “Bill Clinton 6’2”, George (H.W.) Bush 6’2”, George W. Bush 5’11.75” USA Today June 23, 2004

• George W. Bush “Height: 71.50 inches (without shoes)”5.11.5” New York Time August 2, 2006

• George W. Bush “Height: 71.50 inches (without shoes)” 5’11.5” FindLaw August 7, 2007

• Bill Clinton 6’2”, George H.W. Bush 6’2”, George W. Bush 5’11.5” - Kane, Joseph (1993). Facts about the Presidents: A Compilation of Biographical and Historical Information. New York: H. W. Wilson. pp. 344–45. ISBN 0-8242-0845-5.

• Bill Clinton 6’2” - Sommers, Paul M. (January 2002). "Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?". The College Mathematics Journal 33 (1): 14–16. doi:10.2307/1558973.

Sources provided by user Misha:

• “Consider the 1996 presidential election. Approaching that campaign the Clinton White House, so forthright on other issues, began to waffle on the president's height. In 1992 Clinton's aides said he was 6 feet 2 1/2 inches tall. That year he beat George (H.W.) Bush, who was 6-2.” “None of this ever received the media attention it deserved, but in 1993, once Clinton was safely in office, his doctor reported he was only 6-2. In 1994, the report of his annual physical said he was 6-2 1/2. In 1995, he was back to 6-2.” “But Texas Gov. George W. Bush's huge lead in the polls and in fund-raising may get him the nomination before primary voters realize he is only 5-11. His true height may also be clouded somewhat in the public's mind by memories of his father. The elder Bush at 6-2 towered over his 1988 Democratic opponent” The Washington Post August 3, 1999

• “(George W.) Bush is 72 inches tall without his shoes” The Washington Post (via Highbeam) August 5, 2001

• “[Clinton] moved quietly, looking relaxed, a large man, 6 feet 3, with a mop of thick, graying hair that took some of the edge off his boyish self-assurance.” The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House by Bob Woodward June 16, 1994

Newly-found sources:

• “wikipedia's entry on this misstates Bill Clinton's height, which was measured during official medical exams at 6-foot-2-1/2, making him just a tad taller than George H.W. Bush.” Washington Post October 11, 2007

• “George W. Bush (5 foot 11.5 inches)” Christian Science Monitor October 18, 2011

• “George H.W. Bush 6ft2 – 188cm, Bill Clinton 6ft2 – 188cm, George W. Bush 5ft11.5 - 182cm” Heightsite.com

• “George H.W. Bush 6’2, Bill Clinton 6’2, George W. Bush 5’11” The Guardian October 18, 2011

• “President (George W.) Bush can count himself among the more imposing of the heads of government: He's 5'11", and a nice pair of cowboy boots would easily lift him over 6 feet.” ABC News July 5, 2008

• “At his August 2001 physical, (George W.) Bush was supposedly 6 feet 0 inches tall. USA Today, however, says that Bush is 5 feet, 11 and 3/4 inches tall and Bush's much-discussed National Guard records list him as 5 feet 11 inches tall while in his mid-20s.” Dr. Zebra, The Health and Medical History of President George W. Bush

--76.189.110.167 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Although there are a few outlier sources showing slightly different heights for these presidents, the clear majority of sources confirm the heights currently stated in the article. The article, with some of the news sources above, now includes six reliable sources to confirm Clinton's height (6'2") AND four cites to confirm George W. Bush's height (5'11.5"). Therefore, these long-standing pieces of content, which are fully and reliably sourced, should not be changed or removed. --76.189.110.167 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 20:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm volunteering to give the requested third opinion. Please sit tight and I will get back in a bit. Formerip (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Please note that third opinions are not binding. If either of you is unhappy with this one, please consider another form of dispute resolution.

1. The photograph is not reliable either for the heights or relative heights of the people in it. These factors and perhaps some more may have the effect of making things look true which are not: the effects of perspective, the angle of the camera lens, the presence or absence of Cuban heels and height-boosting insoles, how close together the subjects' feet are, their posture.
2. In the absence of photographs taken under special conditions, the only thing we can base height information on is reliable print and internet sources. We should give most weight to primary sources or to sources that appear closest to primary sources (so, an NYT report about the president's medical beats a report that mentions his height in passing and may have got the information eighth hand or from memory).
3. We seem to have reliable sourcing for Clinton being measured three times and coming out at 6'2 twice and 6'2½ once. I don't think it's unusual for people to be measured and fluctuate like that. Perhaps Clinton's true height is about halfway between the two, although we have no way of knowing.
4. There is also weaker sourcing (we might call it hearsay) that puts him at 6'2½ and 6'3. For the purposes of the article, these should be ignored, since information directly derived from medical information is more reliable.
5. We should say that Bill Clinton is "6'2 or 6'2½" and add a footnote explaining the fluctuation between the three medicals.
6. As a probably futile aside, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is worth reading.

Formerip (talk) 00:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for reviewing this. You fully addressed Clinton. However, you did not address George W. Bush's height, which MishaKeats also wants to change - from 5'11.5" to 6'0". (The third opinion request said, "One user wants to change the heights of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The other user contends the changes are not warranted.") Misha said above, "Not only does this indicate that George W. Bush is in fact, a six footer, it also indirectly dismisses the notion that Clinton is 6'2". So I am now proposing two edits on the page - for George W. Bush and Clinton." So can you please give your opinion about changing George W. Bush's height? Thanks, again. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the same thing applies for Bush Jr. We seem to have reliable sourcing that indicates he is both 5'11½ and 6' according to his medicals, so we should put both and a footnote. Formerip (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestions are completely acceptable to me and I would be fine with you making the edits. As long as none of the current sources in the article are removed. Thank you very much. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't normally make the edits when I do this. I think it's best to just give an opinion and not be seen to try to impose anything.

Apologies for not answering both questions first time, BTW. I read the original request a while before reading the discussion above, which does seem to concentrate mainly on Clinton. Formerip (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Your well-reasoned input is very much appreciated. As far as making the specific edits you suggested, which are a very nice compromise IMHO, I don't know how to do them. So if there's no objection, it would be great if you could make them. Please note that the edits would have to be made on both the gray chart and the green and yellow chart. Thanks, again. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

One big problem I just noticed. NONE of the listings in the article have more than one height for someone. They all choose the height that has the most reliable sources. So there's no precedent to have two heights for someone. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a very big problem to me. Edit the page so that, in at least one case, there are two heights noted next to someone's name and - hey presto! - you have a precedent. Formerip (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I'll trust your judgement since you have a lot more experience. But when I saw that no one on the list has two heights, it just made me worry that other editors will later say, "Hey, you can't have more than one height for someone!" ;) In any case, I'm totally fine with your compromise, although I see no need to change the sourced heights that are currently in the article. But the one thing that should not be done is to remove the current heights (which have been there a long time and have many sources) and replace them with different heights. Do you agree? --76.189.108.102 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out its not so easy. I tried to do and it works perfectly well - except that the tables are sortable by height and won't sort properly if you put two heights in one box. I'll go away and have a think. Formerip (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, OK. How about just putting a special note indicating that a couple sources show the heights of Clinton and G.W. Bush being a half-inch more? And leave the prevailing, sourced heights currently in the charts. After all, there have been a few sources showing slightly different heights for many of the names on the list, but for all of them the editors went with the height that has the most reliable sources. You can see that there are currently 6 sources for Clinton and 4 for Bush. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bill Clinton's height

I would fix it myself, but I don't want to mess anything up, so I'll ask that someone more familiar with the tables take care of it. Clinton's height is 6'2.5" or 1.83m. Source Another source. faithless (^speak) 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

6'2.5" is in fact 1.89m. That means as well that Clinton was the taller of the candidates in the 92 election. Are there any other sources that verify Clinton's height? If he is 1.89m, then the 92 election in the table needs to be changed to a taller candidate win, which would confirm again the conclusion this article appears to be making on taller candidates.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, 6'2.5" is 1.89m. But you need more sources? Surely the New York Times and Forbes are good enough? :) faithless (^speak) 19:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Though the Forbes article was only indicating that Bill Clinton was around 6'2". But never mind, a couple of the external sources at the end of this article also stated that he was 6'2.5", so I guess that's good enough:) I've put his new height in the table and updated the statistics on tall/short winners, which now reflect one more taller candidate win in presidential elections.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton looks about 2 cm (0,75") shorter than Obama (1,85/86m 6-1), so Clinton is about 1,83/84 m (6-0,25) now. I don´t understand, why still the medieval, complicated foot-inch-pound system is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.248.73 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Which article title is better?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States → Heights of United States presidents and presidential candidates – Relisted to list at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Which article title is better: (A) "Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States" or (B) "Heights of United States presidents and presidential candidates"? --76.189.110.167 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• B: it is 5 bytes less. Don't see any other reason to prefer one over another. As I suppose that this RfC is in fact a requested move, I say: oppose move as senseless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with Heights of United States Presidential contenders--Louiedog (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Height of US Presidential candidates. Do they start wearing platform shoes when they take office, or suddenly grow four inches taller? Also, height is singular. They each only have one height. It is Presidents that is plural. US does not need to be spelled out. Apteva (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sorting error

When I click on "height" to arrange the heights in order from tallest to shortest, the order is wrong. It shows 5'10 as taller than 5'10.5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Height graph regression line.

On the chart of heights there is a regression line showing an upward trend. Given the extreme amount of variability in the data, I think it's extremely dubious to show any trend whatsoever. Furthermore, it's original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.117.155 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• The regression line also appears to be completely wrong. If you take the heights listed in the rest of the article and calculate a regression line you get a downward trend with an R2 of .002 (which is so far below meaningful its kind of hard to imagine). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My mistake made a data entry error. There is an upward trend with n R2 of .127 which is small but not meaningless.

Perception

This article does not address perhaps the most important aspect of its subject: voters' perceptions of height. That is to say, campaigns do not explicitly refer to their candidate's height either directly ("Our candidate is 6' 1" and we believe that this height will permit him to see over the obfuscation of his opponent, Sen. ....") or comparatively ("Our candidate is 4 inches taller than any other candidate in the race, and we believe that this will permit him to ....") or hyperbolically ("Now the tallest candidate ever!") or any other way. At least none that I've seen in the some fifty years that I've been tuned in to political campaigns. If height has any effect on voter choices, it has to come from voter perceptions of height differences. They could get these perhaps through the news, as in a recent NPR report on Tim Pawlenty, which described him as "tall and trim, with a good head of hair...." It had no specifics about height, though. The only clues voters have, then, are the view of candidates with other candidates or with other people whose heights they know, such as local or regional political figures or celebrities. With those perceptions comes some margin of error for estimating the height of a candidate. Can a voter, watching the action from afar at a political event or on television or in a news photo, make a discrimination of 1/2 inch in a candidate's height? Of an inch in a candidate's height? If you give a range of 1/2 inch for discrimination, the table of wins and losses has 19 taller winners rather than 26, 17 shorter winners rather than 19, and 13 of equal height (+/- 1/2 inch margin) rather than 4. If you give a range of 1 inch, the table has 16 taller winners, 16 shorter winners and 17 of equal height (+/- 1 inch margin). In other words, height as a discriminating factor in wins and losses disappears. Whoever wrote this article got caught up in the raw and absolute numbers, and didn't try to interpret them in the human context. MaxwellPerkins (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, it is worth noting that while the taller candidate doesn't always win, all of the winning candidates since 1960 (when television became an important factor) are taller than the average male (5'10") with the exception of Carter, who is a full half inch shorter than the national average. While the shorter candidate sometimes wins, that candidate is still fairly tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.197.50 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Lyndon B. Johnson

The source used to verify Johnson's height (Kane, Facts about the Presidents) says he was 6ft3in, not 6ft4in (I checked the copy in my university library). Robert Dallek's biography of Johnson says his height in adulthood was 6ft3 1/2 in (see the version on Google Books [3], p. 16 of chapter 1 (the pages are not numbered)). Given that Dallek, as Johnson's biographer, has probably investigated Johnson's history more completely than anyone else, I have opted for this source as the most reliable regarding his height. Therefore, I have changed Johnson's height to 6ft3 1/2 in. I was unable to find a reliable source that verified the original height listed of 6ft4in. Wcp07 (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Other sources claim he's 6ft 4in; including Robert A. Caro and many film materials from the 1960s: [4]. Most websites confirm that information. --Jerchel (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that Robert A. Caro's biography (The Passage of Power, p. 11) says that Johnson was "just under six foot four inches in height", which isn't the same as saying he was 6ft4in. Caro also noted in his second volume that Johnson was over 6ft3in[5], which suggests that his real height is between 6ft3in and 6ft4in. Note as well that other biographers and sources give his height as 6ft3in: this book[6], Kane's reference book listed before and Sommers's article, "Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?", also used in the article. Do you know of any other sources that say he was 6ft4in? (I was unable to find a reference to LBJ's height on the website you linked.) Wcp07 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is mentioned by the reporter in the video between 9:00 and 9:10 (the text only conatins the words of the president himself). I read the 6ft4in figure at least in one other book in German (one is named Die amerikanischen Präsidenten (The American Presidents) by Christoph Mauch). That book and the best biography in german of Lincoln (Abraham Lincoln- Amerikas großer Präsident) also claim that he was 6ft3,5in (192cm). Most sources in the internet however list both at 6ft4in ([7]). It seems to be difficult the give exact numbers. I also believe that, as I pointed out earlier above, that Gerald Ford was taller than 6ft (he seems to be at least tied to Reagan). Perhaps we should add footnotes for all presidents with more than one avaibale value, especially if it's about an half inch, which is acutally not very much. --Jerchel (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for the sake of accuracy I would support listing different height values where reliable sources give more than one number. I do think it's a good idea to rely largely on the most reliable sources, like comprehensive biographies and websites/articles dedicated to providing information on the US Presidents rather than sources that are only incidentally related to this topic. Wcp07 (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I found three high-quality sources saying that Johnson was 6 ft 3.5 inches. The first is Caro, who supplies that specific height. That, in itself, is a major piece of evidence, given Caro's legendary thoroughness on Johnson. The other two are books by Robert Dallek, but in each of them he is citing a different source. So, as a result, we really do have three distinct good sources saying the height was 6 ft 3.5 inches. Thus, I have updated the page. You can find the specific references there. Thanks. Drz1627 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Relative to general population

The article discusses the theory that the taller candidate tends to win elections, but what about the possibility that taller people are more likely to be viable candidates in the first place? If the difference between the average winner and loser is about 1 inch, that still leaves room for the possibility that taller people are more likely to secure the nomination. 67.248.48.245 (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

American centrism

If this were of any other nationality, it would have been speedy deleted. NorthernThunder (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Height sorting

Sorting this by height gives you Lyndon Johnson being tallest (6' 1/2"), and not Lincoln (6' 3/4"). I think the sorting doesn't get mixed numbers. Is there a way to change this? --RickNightCrawler (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/22/romney-ryan-health-by-the-numbers-2/

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} 23:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

There have been several concerns on this Talk page about original research but without a good discussion. I created an entry on the original research noticeboard and you are all invited to give your $0.02 there. Andrew³²⁷ 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Unanimous consensus determined that the section was, in fact, original research and an editor deleted it. Andrew³²⁷ 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

For those interested in seeing it, the original Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard discussion has been archived here and this edit is the one that removed the WP:OR section. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Chart confusion caused by the caption

In the upper-right part of the article is this graphic with the caption "Presidents, like the U.S. population, have grown taller over time." The heights of the presidents are shown as a bar graph and there is a straight black line running across near the tops of the bars. Based on the caption I first thought the black like was the average U.S. population height. However, when clicked to view the image in detail I realized the line is too high and likely is some form of straight line average of U.S. President heights. The article never mentions the U.S. population height. We don't seem to have an article about that subject. There's Human height and List of average human height worldwide but neither provides data on the historical average height of citizens of the United States. While looking for that data I saw Human height#History of human height which has: Average height of Americans and Europeans decreased during periods of rapid industrialization, possibly due to rapid population growth and increased economic inequality.^[8]

With that in mind I've deleted the "like the U.S. population" from the chart's caption leaving just the factual though redundant statement "Presidents have grown taller over time". I'm still not happy with that caption as the source or method of calculating the black line is not explained other than "MS Excel". --Marc Kupper|talk 00:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I fired up Excel and found that using its Linear Trendline function adds a line that matches the one shown in the chart for this article. I've added a link to the image caption about this. I've also set up a Google Sheets document here that's open to public editing. However, I can't figure out how to add a trendline to the chart. This help page says "If you don’t see the trendline option, it means trendlines don’t work with your data." but does not explain how to fix this. I'm using a column chart. I did not bother with trying to match the colors and other details exactly. For example, the original chart uses #C0504D and the nearest of the stock colors Google offers is #A61C00. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Height in feet

The sorting function is pointless as it screws up the figures with 1⁄2. --2.245.116.114 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Harry Truman Height

I find it hard to believe that Harry Truman was 5'9. If you look at photos of him next to Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta conference, Truman appears just slightly taller than Churchill (who was known to be 5'6), but nothing like 3 inches taller. Churchill didn't always have an upright posture, but in a few photographs where both Churchill and Truman are standing next to each other (and both fully erect), its hard to believe that Truman was more than an inch taller. Take a look at the photo on this link http://media.salon.com/2015/05/churchill_truman_stalin2.jpg, here even though Churchill's head is slightly tilted forward (making him appear shorter) he still looks nothing like 3 or even 2 inches shorter than Truman. 73.252.154.119 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

What does "average height" even mean in this sentence?

The average height of a US president has been 5 ft 10.7 inches and 5 ft 11.6 inches since 1901.

Wouldn't it make more sense to express the "average height" as a single number? Any statement like this should define what "average" means in that context (ie mathematical average). If there is no source for this, a note should explain how the number is calculated. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be saying that it is 5 ft 10.7 overall (since George Washington). But of the presidents since 1901, it is 5 ft 11.6 inches. Squandermania (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Squandermania: I suppose that interpretation is possible, but if that is what the sentence is supposed to mean, it is very poorly phrased. Did you do the math to see if it checks out? And what is the significance of the year 1901 for Presidential height? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: No, I didn't do the math; that is just how I read the sentence, but I agree it is poorly phrased if that's what they mean. I assume they're using 1901 just as someone would talk about the 20th century — it's a nice round number. In this case, 1901 was the year Teddy Roosevelt took office, so 1901 is more appropriate than 1900, the last year of McKinley's presidency. Squandermania (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed the sentence since it is unsourced, badly expressed (with regard to the two, seemingly conflicting values) and probably now out of date. There is no reason for us to recalculate this value after every election or new claim of height for a current or past President or candidate. Anyone who cares can do the calculation for themselves. General Ization ^Talk 19:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Lincoln surmounting Lyndon B. Johnson

This phrase is utterly misleading and doesn't add anything to the picture. It seems to imply that Lincoln broke the record previously held by Lyndon B. Johnson, but in fact, he preceded him. --88.64.237.129 (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. 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/20120729110212/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/10/11/head_and_shoulders_above.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/44/2007/10/11/head_and_shoulders_above.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100325235550/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/potus_med_exam_feb2010.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/potus_med_exam_feb2010.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) 08:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. 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/20120823011119/http://www.heightsite.com/2-BEING-TALL/tallest/presidential-height-index.html to http://www.heightsite.com/2-BEING-TALL/tallest/presidential-height-index.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) 04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

McClellan

According to "McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union" By Ethan Rafuse (review at http://www.historynet.com/acw/reviews/acwreview0306-1/), George B. McClellan stood "perhaps half a foot below 6 feet tall" ( probably the source of his nickname "Little Mac" ). Tentatively I'm listing his height therefore as 5'6; he certainly must have been much shorter than Lincoln.

I'm back.

As promised, I am back a month later, to remove all Fake News Media conspiracy theories contradicting Dr. Jackson's OFFICIAL examination listing Trump at a height of 6'3". I will continue to revert such vandalism until 1) the article ceases to exist or 2) I cease to exist. Believe me. 2601:600:827F:B40A:3409:3908:FC20:ED7F (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Question for administrator

This editor is threatening ongoing disruption of Wikipedia despite multiple (and seemingly ineffective) blocks. WWGB (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Addressing. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Archives

Why is there no link to them from this page? 149.144.23.79 (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

News Flash: Some People Are Color Blind!

This is an interesting topic. But why use colors that are so close as to be indistinguishable for some of us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B03C:CE0D:E575:7DBA:95F2:A2A8 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Heights of 2019/2020 US Presidential candidates

Extended content

Is there an article anywhere on Wikipedia (or elsewhere) that tells us the (verifiable?) heights of (m)any or most of the current 2019/2020 US Presidential candidates? Some Wikipedia articles for these candidates DO include height information, but others do not. While we are not consistent in including this information for all candidates, I would prefer including what information we can validate rather for some than our removing information for them because we do not have that information for other candidates. The figures I get 'provisionally' are: Amy Jean Klobuchar - 5′8″ Andrew Yang - 5′10″ Bernie Sanders - 6′0″ Cory Booker - 6′2″ or 6′2.5″ or 6′3.5″ Deval Patrick - 5′8.5″ or 5′10″ Elizabeth Warren - 5′8″ Joe Biden - 5′11.5″ or 6′0″ or 6′0.5″ Julián Castro - 5′9″ Kamala Harris - 5′2″ Marianne Williamson - 5′3″ Michael Farrand Bennet - unavailable ('medium height') Michael Bloomberg - 5′6.5″ or 5′7″ or 5′8″ Pete Buttigieg - 5′8″ Thomas Fahr Steyer - 5′9″ Tulsi Gabbard - 5′8″ Is there any warrant for such an article or for including such data in any current Wikipedia article? MaynardClark (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC) One might ALSO want to add 'net worth' of candidates, since that information has been sought by a number of journalists and other writers. References