Jump to content

Talk:Average human height by country/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Dubious Source for Germany

The numbers for Germany are from a dubious and unscientifical source as stated in this article from the german times. But the german federal agency for statistics (Bundesamt für Statistik) has some official numbers from 2017 [1]. The full report including gender distinction is available here. 2003:C4:BF1E:A277:F8D4:5ABA:8839:64C6 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Indonesia Measurement needs an update

From the data on the page it says that the average height of Indonesians is 154 cm for men and 147 for women, in my opinion it is not accurate data, the data was reported in 1997 and after I saw from the source that https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6mh9r0hm . the subject aged 59 - 61 which means born in the 1930s and 1940s usually did not grow with adequate nutrition. We know what difficulties they encountered in that era, so, to answer the question, based on my observation, Indonesians are not too short compared to Southeast Asians like Malaysia or the Philippines who share the same genetics as us. If you want to compare, don't use outdated data. Please use the updated data and re-port the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed Hyea (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

Please change the average height of india(where 166.3 cm is written here) to 164.7cm because 166.3 cm is predicted average height for 20 year old guy not a measured value for 20-49 year old guys. Source-https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/156482651103200103 As you can see in the above source clearly that average 20-49 year old men(indian) is 164.7cm not 166.3cm. The above study is quite old which was done in 2005-06. and also here is the recent 2015-16 national family health survey Source- https://www.livemint.com/news/india/indian-children-may-no-longer-outgrow-parents-1555556776629.html The average height data is from 2015-16 nfhs4 survey where men and women from all income levels are covered, So, The above source is nationally representative study which can be taken seriously. And average 18 year old indian boy of 174.3cm in urban india is misleading because that average is measured among the upper class Indians who are in minority.So, it is not nationally representative sample. 103.44.14.131 (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

United States Non hispanic Asian male height reads as 183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in) this is incorrect it should be 169.7 cm (5 ft 7 in), the source for this is in the listed source and the "Sample population/age range" section 2603:9001:7400:BD00:8C0E:904F:826B:996C (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is correct sampling as Asians are counted as whole and not individually Brian89014 (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
No this is correct as Asians including East and South Asians sampling and not counted individually Brian89014 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes updated info on Asian Americans average height reverted back to 5ft 7in
Brian89014 (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Info is corrected after taking median height in account of southeast and south and far east and Pacific average height Brian89014 (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The following heights were vandalised by User:Brian89014. Hereby a request to restore them to the proper values.

  • United States - African Americans change 183.2 to 175.5.
  • United States - Asian Americans change 183.2 to 169.7.
  • India - Patiala, Punjab change 175.3 to 177.3.
  • China change 183.1 to 169.5.
  • China - Beijing - Urban change 188.2 to 175.2.

Thank you. Installgentoo1337 (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. User:Brian89014 Could you explain your changes here? AFAICS they're non-controversial updates but if the information is incorrect the please fix it RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Here are two other instances of vandalism by User:Brian89014 that were reverted, as they should be.
If you take your time to look at the changes made by this user you will see they only changed the height and not the source. If you take your time to look at the sources you will see they do not support the changes. Clearly these changes were made in bad faith.
  • Example: for 'United States - Asian Americans' it is clearly written in the source that the average height is 169.7 cm for non-Hispanic Asian males, not 183.2 cm. Source number 136 taken from the page itself: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr122-508.pdf, page 7, column 2015-2016.
You commented "It's very possible that the information in the source changed ("updated"). In any case this discussion should take place at the article TP". This is possible but is not the case. The listed sources do not support these changes. If there are sources that do then they should be added. But until then the heights in the table should be taken from the sources in the table, not from thin air.
So, User:Brian89014 very clearly is vandalising the page. All of his edits need to be reverted. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

REPLY 23-JUN-2020

Reviewing... this mess. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 14:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of diffs, sources and checking for verificaiton
No. Diff Description Revert Reference Passed verification?
1. 09:44, June 21, 2020 China – Beijing – Urban from cm=175.2 to cm=190.2 09:51, June 21, 2020 [1]  No
2. 09:48, June 21, 2020 China from cm=169.5 to cm=185.2 09:51, June 21, 2020 [2]  Inconclusive
3. 09:56, June 21, 2020 Same as above, but to cm=183.1 and cm=188.2 respectively 23:17, June 22, 2020 Same as above  No and  Inconclusive respectively
4. 10:00, June 21, 2020 India – Patiala, Punjab from cm=177.3 to cm=175.3 [3]  No
5. 10:15, June 21, 2020 United States – African Americans from cm=175.5 to cm=183.2 23:22, June 22, 2020 [4]  No
United States – Asian Americans from cm=169.7 to cm=183.2
See also: See the last diff		 09:28, June 22, 2020
Note: See the last diff
6. 23:22, June 21, 2020 Bosnia and Herzegovina from 183.9 cm (6 ft 0 in) to 181.9 cm (5 ft 11 in) 23:17, June 22, 2020 [5]  No
7. 09:28, June 22, 2020 United States – Asian Americans from cm=183.2 to cm=170.2 [4]  No

References

  1. ^ "Beijing height" (PDF). 2013. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
  2. ^ "国家体育总局".
  3. ^ "THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARM SPAN AND HEIGHT IN ADULT MALES OF NORTH INDIAN PUNJABI POPULATION" (PDF).
  4. ^ a b "National Health Statistics Report (CDC)" (PDF).
  5. ^ Popović S, et al. (2015). "Body Height and Its Estimation Utilizing Arm Span Measurements in Bosnian and Herzegovinian Adults" (PDF). Montenegrin Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 4 (1): 29–36.

Conclusion

All changes made by Brian89014 to this article have failed verificaiton. They are warned that if they continue to make changes that are unsourced, orginal research, or other types of subtle vandalism, they may be reported to administrators.

@RandomCanadian:

Information icon Please do not speedy answer edit request without indepth review. Thank you.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 16:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

Change "the height of persons" to "the height of a person", the first one sounds really weird. 77.230.15.59 (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Too many differing studies.

From a readability standpoint where it stands now, the page is very confusing. We should trimm it down to the most comprehensive studies with the largest sample sizes. There;'s just too much variation within countries regions, sports, army, etc. Belevalo (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection

Users continue to make changes that are unsourced, orginal research and other types of subtle vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A546:5AFD:0:C541:4547:F4FB:4B4F (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

URGENT CORRECTION NEEDED.

Maps not reflected to stats. Wrong either way. Stephenfryfan (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Estimated average height of 19-year-olds by country

This entire section should be removed. There has been no comprehensive study at any time, let alone over 14 years (2005-2019) to measure the heights of 19-year-olds all over the world. The document merely reports selective data as once upon a time sat on the spreadsheet of this very article. The Dutch figure of 1.838 is not a measurement of 19-year-olds, but is an estimate based on a self-reported (i.e. inaccurate, unconfirmed and likely exaggerated) count on 21-year-old Dutch males (growth surely 99.9% complete). This figure is already surpassed by an actual measurement, that being Bosnia and Herzegovina (1.839) and even that includes older persons. I see no reason not to stick just with the more detailed table that allows each reader to examine the source in question and interpret it as he so chooses. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree Coldtrack. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
On a very similar note, have you noticed that in everyday media when the topic is broached, older Wikipedia information is often cited without reference to the where it was taken from, the sources themselves, the time it was measured, the sample size, the age group, other essential factors, etc. It just gets taken as factual. Hereinafter you get Youtubers gushing out the details as though they were gospel. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Coldtrack Absolutely true. And with higher number of mobile device users nowadays, it gets really annoying when you have to write WP:CIRCULAR, see diff..., unsourced again and again, not to mention the surge of some users thanks to more people staying indoors due to covid. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Two months has been long enough. I'll remove it. I also believe the Montenegrin male figure should be reduced to 1.829 from its inflated 1.834. One of the sources on the same region (I'll find it if challenged) notes that Montenegro was divided into three geographical regions - north, centre and south - and a mean was taken on the three averages. The southern specimen which was the shortest was also by far the largest and therefore the figure is an exaggeration. Thankfully a Croatian report (purely on the subject of height and not anything political) acknowledges this and corrects it with someone else having done the maths (sparing us from WP:OR). Not sure about the female figure though so I'll leave that as it is. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This data is a reliable data that analyzed the height of 65 million people around the world by a British team in the UK and was also published in the medical journal'lancet'. Data surveyed on a consistent basis is much more accurate than data analyzed in one's own country. Retnisoa (talk) 05:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Each country has a different method of analyzing keys. Data analyzed by a single, consistent, authoritative criterion is much betterRetnisoa (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The measurement of height in each country is also inaccurate as it varies depending on the measuring organization.

Preserve average height of 19 years olds by country. Retnisoa (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The last 24 hours have been hilarious, Coldtrack vandalized the article by deleting properly sourced material, falsified (unsourced) data of a study from Montenegro, and I am finally arrested by Wiki Gestapo.
Perverse world, do consider – even as a passionate Wikipedian – to leave this community entirely. Shame on adimn ToBeeFree, you won't be long in your position! You did lose a lot of credibility yesterday and even more so today. Admins don't have a free ride either, what goes around comes back around.2003:C2:5721:456:BD68:9D42:BF61:1BA5 (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Retnisoa - You say "each country has a different method of analysing". On the contrary, it is not the country that is taking the measurement but a commissioned delegation qualified in athropometry. Some have taken samples in more than one country, while others of their nature exist to take measurements in one of the countries already covered. However, your observation that each country functions differently is enough to pour cold water over your preference for a spreadsheet that provides comprehensive information for what it has never set out to investigate. Continuing, you have said the following: "this data is a reliable data that analyzed the height of 65 million people around the world by a British team in the UK and was also published in the medical journal'lancet'. Data surveyed on a consistent basis is much more accurate than data analyzed in one's own country." I am sorry but where does it say this in your source? Yes there may be "a British team" behind the compiled spreadsheet, but are you implying that the British team actually travelled the world and measured 19-year olds? If so it would have needed far greater analysis per country. But even then, how did this team manage to produce the very same figures for nations as already published in previous studies? If I didn't know better, I'd say that this "British team" has measured nobody or anything, but their rush to judgement is based on having copied verbatim once standing statistics that exist ONLY on Wikipedia, and without further fact-checking they proceeded with their report. The Dutch male figure of 1.838 is not a measurement of 19-year olds. It is a self-reported figure for 21-year olds taken a few years before your source was released. This is covered in WP:MIRROR. Take time to read it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Retnisoa "Falsifying Montenegro" unsourced claim. It is not as unsourced as a source is not included. The source in questions says the following:

  • Areas with extraordinary height are not limited to Herzegovina and have an analogy in neighbouring Montenegro, and on the Adriatic coast of Croatia (Dalmatia). The mean height of young Montenegrin males aged 17–20 years is 183.4 cm (Popović, 2017), although this value would slightly decrease to 182.9 cm if we took population size in individual municipalities into account. Read this. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

2003:C2:5721:456:BD68:9D42:BF61:1BA5 - You operate from within an IP range that was intended to be blocked so I would consider myself lucky to have slipped through the net here, and if you keep this up accusing me of "vandalism" and criticising ToBeFree, an admin who has performed his duty impeccably, I am sure that the range can be widened. For now I all I can do is refer you to the opening paragraphs of this thread which explain everything. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You (=Coldtrack) are writing very long content, but they are 100% lying. Don't lie to deceive people in the discussion. https://news.sbs.co.kr/amp/news.amp?news_id=N1006064794 https://m.yna.co.kr/amp/view/AKR20201106157100085 https://m.wowtv.co.kr/ NewsCenter/AMP/Read?articleId=A202011070077 https://cm.asiae.co.kr/ampview.htm?no=2020110620242013871 This is never a self-reported height. According to my sources, as stated by the Daily Telegraph, BBC, etc., a research team at Imperial College London in the UK analyzed the height of more than 65 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 from 193 countries around the world between 1985 and 2019 and published in the medical journal Lancet. did. You are 100% lied in discussions, take the responsibility to deceive people, and leave Wikipedia. Retnisoa (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You (=Coldtrack)incited by lying that this data was not sourced, but what you said during this time was 100% lying. Leave Wikipedia right nowRetnisoa (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You (=Coldtrack) incited that the height analysis of 65 million people studied in the UK, which was also reported by the BBC and cited in the thesis journal, was self-reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retnisoa (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://ncdrisc.org/height-mean-map.html This site is an analysis of the world's average tall papers analyzed by a team of 65 million UK UK and UK listed in the thesis journal.Retnisoa (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I only speak three languages in the whole world: English, Ukrainian and Russian. Your first two sources I cannot comment on. However, if your third is anything to go by, we can analyse it with ease. That is nothing more than a compiled list of information that previously existed on Wikipedia. Perhaps those years 2005 to 2019 were lifted straight from the original sources, but no way did a team of British professionals travel the globe over 14 years to measure 19-year olds. One more thing. How relevant is a measurement from 2005 in 2019? Are you aware that whoever was 19 in 2005 would by 2019 have been 33 years old. That just is not the way research works. If you want to know the actual source which produced the 1.838 figure for Dutch males, you can look back on the article's archive. I don't favour its removal but someone else did for whatever reason. The point is that this figure has been anointed by organisations right across the English speaking world as sacrosanct and forced down people's throats. Thanks to the Herzegovina region no less, the country Bosnia & Herzegovina has produced a figure showing that a real measurement actually surpasses this Dutch figure. Even so, nobody claims that the figure applies to 19-year olds, but to males aged 19 to 30. The only other thing I can tell you is that a source that claims something as factual does not mean its content really is factual. On this occasion, we know the provenance of the claim, and it is not a 14-year project by a British team. Don't bother to defend your support for the faulty spreadsheet with any more references to the proliferation of mirrored sources across the web. From this stage , you are at WP:ONUS. Hopefully it should have a page in your language. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with Coldtrack about the 183.8cm figure on the Netherlands, I don't see the point of the whole discussion. The methods of this study – with over 65 million participants – explicitly state that all figures are estimates based on non-linear trends between 1985 and 2019. Nobody claims that a sample group has been tracked and measured for over 24 years.

I find the NCD RisC study quite helpful, especially since some smaller countries have no data in 'Height surveys and studies'.2003:C2:5721:496:112A:4217:F65:E35C (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As has been explained several times on this thread, there is a policy called WP:ONUS which I suggest you read. When by your own admission the spreadsheet reports incorrect information, it helps nobody. If there is a self-reported Netherlands figure of 1.838 which you acknowledge, you don't get to insert that figure as a cut and dried statistic for 19-year olds. End of. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Trained health-care professionals carried out the standardized measurements. Infant length was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm in the supine position until 2 y of age. From 2 y of age onward, standing height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm. The children’s demographic characteristics were obtained from the parents or from adolescents themselves by health-care professionals using a questionnaire.recheck.2A0A:A547:2F21:0:E87D:78B:CE17:5338 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
OK. Well I can write a blog in which I announce the Tatars to be the world's tallest people with a two-meter average, and can attribute this to equally anonymous "health care professionals" without telling you who they are, whom they measured, when, and all other properties associated with an official count. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


Don't want to burst your bubble Coldtrack but the actual primary source indicates a measured dutch figure:
Have no fears as no bubble has been burst. That source doesn't say that the Dutch are the tallest in the world, it says the people of the Dinaric Alps are. The Danish have never weighed in with 1.837 but they have produced 1.826, so a clear error there. Interestingly, that source if anything does nothing more than lend support to the more contentious site which is stuck at WP:ONUS. For the Dutch males to be 1.84 we need to know who measured, the sample, footnotes about those measured, the age range and the time it occurred, not a report that says, "blah blah blah are 1.81", and we also need an exact figure, not just "1.84" (e.g. 1.836? 1.842?). That said, this would be information that goes onto the main spreadsheet. It is not an argument to support the inclusion of the faulty spreadsheet where 21k depend on one single source. I'm certain your source is both rushed and driven by an agenda. The fact that Montenegro is not acknowledged anywhere is a highly dubious point. The regions to have recorded the world's highest mean averages are Dalmatia, Herzegovina and northern and central Montenegro. In southern Montenegro and the remainder of the eastern Adriatic, you get figures akin to the Dutch/Danish counts. The country with the highest recorded average on any count is Bosnia & Herzegovina whose 19-32 males were 1.839 and this was in 2013. Your source is both selective and inaccurate, and moreover so out of date that no part of it can even be included on the main spreadsheet. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Cannot say that there is a broad consensus contra NCD RisC, so we should at least make the data set available in a collapsible manner, and leave it to the reader up himself whether it is relevant for his search @Coldtrack.Prim96 (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Prim96. No because the information is misleading and thereby flat out wrong. It is clear how the site publisher arrived at its statistics and that is not the way scientific information is prepared. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: Yes, this is exactly how scientific information is prepared. You seem to not understand the study, so I'll try to explain. A team of over 1,000 scientists analyzed over 2,000 scientifically-conducted measurement-based studies covering over 65 Million participants worldwide in order to estimate the average height of children and teenagers by age and sex across each country in the world every single year from 1985 to 2019. You can see the team's exact methodology and a list of all the different studies they used if you'd just read through the study, which is not only rigorous but has been published in The Lancet and has been cited nearly 100 times.
I do not see how this violates WP:ONUS, especially when considering what the precedence is. Typically, country lists on Wikipedia take in data from international or extragovernmental organizations in order to fill in gaps in the data. Just take a look at Lists on GDP or lists on country population. Should we discount the data collated by the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank since they didn't directly conduct demographic or economic censuses and surveys in the countries for which they provide data? The NCD-RisC itself works closely with the World Bank and is a generally trusted source by the scientific community anyway.
This data is also not "out of date", as you say. It was published in 2020 and includes data from 2019. More than 90% of the figures on the current table are from before this time period.
It is disingenuous to leave out the results of the largest scientific study conducted on human height publicly and easily available for us. We can keep the rest of the snippets of governmental data in their own table, but for the vast majority of countries on Earth (which do not have up-to-date information, and in many cases, have no information at all), it would definitely be prudent to also utilize figures from this study. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Abbasi786786. Wrong sir. That table was a generic spreadsheet with inaccurate data that was copied from earlier Wikipedia revisions (see WP:MIRROR). That is one of a multitude of reasons that WP:ONUS exists. Quite simply, the spreadhseet misleadingly reports the figures to be of a certain age group and taken over a certain time, wereas in reality, it was to each his own: some studies were for over-21s, just just 19-year olds, etc. Yet the spreadsheet with its out of date information and cherrypicked sources was given to show that every sample was for the given age. You name the country and I will tell you why it is wrong on that table. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
PS It wasn't the "largest study" but an inaccurate composite of selected data. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Coldtrack (talk · contribs) We're still talking about the RisC study, correct? None of that data was taken from "earlier Wikipedia revisions", obviously. It also isn't misleading unless you're purposefully not reading the study, which states that it provided estimates of human height by age group based on the 2,000 historical and present scientific studies on human height. As long as we make sure to mention that the data is estimates (which nevertheless are going to be more accurate than only considering singular studies, considering the reach of the 2,000 studies used and the rigorous mathematical algorithms they used to model human height). This does not contradict WP:ONUS once again, as adding these estimates definitely do improve the article, which is currently incomplete, excluding many countries, and also utilizes out-of-date figures.
Blaming the table for its "out of date information" and "cherry-picked sources" is also strange, considering that is exactly what the current table is made up of. Once again, the estimates given in the dataset made in the RisC study are far more up-to-date than 90% of the figures on the current table, and it is also more complete.

"You name the country and I will tell you why it is wrong on that table."

India -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you. The Indian figures do not match the main table, and there is nothing on there for 19-year olds, but there may have been some years back. the Netherlands' figure of 1.838 is for 21-year olds and not 19-year olds. If a real study produced a figure exactly the same as another for a different age group, and moreover this study having been part of some international project taking place over 24 years by which time the original 19-year olds would have been 43, you'd have known about it. Whatever that table represents, it is based on estimates which are predicated on a certain theory and thereby totally meaningless. You don't contradict WP:ONUS. ONUS means that just because something is sourced doesn't mean it is eligible for inclusion, and the problem with those figures is that they are WP:CIRCULAR and based on somebody's original research and not academics across the field coming together. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: Lol, you're the one who seems like they don't get it.

The Indian figures do not match the main table, and there is nothing on there for 19-year olds, but there may have been some years back.

Obviously the Indian figures aren't gonna match the main table since the data collated by NCD-RisC takes into account all those studies along with 115 more (totalling out to a much, much more accurate estimate than the table). You can read through what studies were used on pages 63 to 65 of this document. Estimated data based on all these 115 studies (which utilized measurements and not self-reported data) is available for 19-year olds, available on the study's spreadsheet and even is available for graphic display on the organization's website.

If a real study produced a figure exactly the same as another for a different age group, and moreover this study having been part of some international project taking place over 24 years by which time the original 19-year olds would have been 43, you'd have known about it.

The issue here is that we do know about it, it wasn't conducted over 24 years, but it uses measured studies taken over many decades (studies which total up to a sample size of 65 million). Read the article.

Whatever that table represents, it is based on estimates which are predicated on a certain theory and thereby totally meaningless.

This is as dumb as saying we shouldn't use the population estimates in non-census years as they are totally useless. Time to take down the Lists of Population by country articles, the Congo hasn't had a census in fifty years, let's just remove it from the list entirely. We don't really do an economic census either, especially in countries such as let's take down the GDP tables as well. We don't know what it really is. Using estimates generated by international organizations has precedent on Wikipedia because it is the most logical course of action in areas where up-to-date info isn't made (which is very true in this niche topic).

the problem with those figures is that they are WP:CIRCULAR and based on somebody's original research and not academics across the field coming together.

That's really funny you say that, because it's entirely false. 2,181 measured studies were used in the formation of these estimates, and you can read through a detailed list of them here on page 51 to page 90. The same link also shows the 1,344 academics who worked on putting together on page 2 to page 38. It's a privilege we have access to such a dataset honestly, and Wikipedia is the right place to put it. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Abbasi786786 You're arguing with the straw man mate. There was no measurement of 19-year olds Dutch males that produced a figure of 1.839 for the year 2019. There was no measurement of Montenegrins of any age at all that found 1.833 during those years, especially considering that before 2006 Montenegro was not even independent. When a measurement takes places or a figure is reported, then by all means insert it into the main around-the-world table. Until then, we don't need those inaccurate meaningless estimates which were selective it their own approach. Per WP:ONUS, the source does not corroborate the point being raised. Quite simply, Montenegro's real figure of 1.829 can easily be lifted by a good cm given 18-year olds in the count and they represent unfinished growth. But that is one of many examples. --Coldtrack (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: This isn't strawman. I'm taking your arguments, breaking them down sentence by sentence, and properly replying.
Anyway, no, there was no study showing the average height of Montenegrins. It'd be infeasible to conduct one every single year in a country as small as that. This is exactly why we have the NCD-RisC study to estimate for us the average human height for every age group for every year. They mathematically predicted it based on all these studies:
Montenegro 1982 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1983 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1984 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1985 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1986 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1987 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 1988 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's
Montenegro 2016 Anthropometric parameters as an indicator of obesity at adolescents in Montenegro
Montenegro 2015-2016 Childhood Obesity Surveillance Initiative 4
Montenegro 2019 Body composition of high school students in Montenegro and its relationship with their eating habits
Montenegro 2019 Initiative for monitoring obesity of children aged 11 to 12 in Montenegro
Montenegro 2019 Initiative for monitoring obesity of children aged 5 to 6 in Montenegro and Slovenia
Montenegro 2018-2019 Initiative for monitoring obesity of children aged 6 to 9 in Montenegro and Slovenia
Obviously averaging and modelling the results of all these studies, every single one of which measured on average 5K people is much better than simply taking one study as the gospel, as the current table does (and that one study isn't even highlighted as "representative of the majority of the country's population"). The results of the study are more accurate than what we have on the current table, far more meaningful, and not at all selective. Once again, if you won't allow it on the main section, the invaluable results of such a study at least should be placed in a secondary table (or perhaps in its own article). -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking a about? In 1983 Montenegro was in Yugoslavia. Who in this world was going around taking measurements of internal regions of countries then? And what exactly was the height of a 19-year old Montenegrin in 1988? Or the 70s and 80s as it is being claimed? The damn thing is a farce, and that is why we have a policy called WP:ONUS. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

PS. We don't need estimates when we have measurements. End of. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

:@Coldtrack: We usually don't have measurements. That's why we use estimates. You see the articles for lists of countries by gdp, life expectancy, even obesity rate? They're all based on singular sources that estimate numbers for every country in the world based on a broad range of measurements and (even more estimates).

I'm willing to allow for the main list to be based solely on the selective and relatively inaccurate singular studies, but considering just how many countries aren't accounted for, it's unreasonable to exclude (once again), the largest and most scientifically rigorous list of estimates for human height ever made across the world. This data belongs either on this article or on a separate article, but it is definitely should not be omitted. Especially since the alternative seems to be this mishmash of studies that differ wildly in even the year they were conducted and the segment of the population they are meant to cover.
As for your other question, in 1983 Montenegro was a unit of Yugoslavia. The same reason we have specific numbers for any statistic on the subnational level for America or for any other country is why we have numbers for Montenegro during the 1980s. And this difference between the 183.3 cm found in the Ncd-RISC dataset and the 182.9 cm found in your one specific study is easy to explain. The average height of a 19-year-old Montenegrin male likely has grown by 0.4 cm between 2017 and 2019. This isn't a really shocking or obviously incorrect statistic, it's unnoticeable. In fact, this could even be covered by a margin of error for your 2017 study. I'd rather go with the 183.3 cm figure either way. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Wait. That just shows that this think tank has been making guesses based on data which we already have. That is a departure from your citation of Montenegro having been the subject of a study every year of the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, if you read the source for Montenegro's 182.9 figure, you get the sample, and this in turn covers a range that includes people with unfinished growth (18-year olds) to those with probably finished growth (20-year olds). We don't know town by town what portion was 18, what was 19, etc. So the table you present has no reason to estimate those figures. Plus the country with the tallest average Bosnia & Herzegovina can hardly produce a figure for 19-year olds lower than anybody else when their gigantic count of 183.87 (unquestionably based on Herzegovina and parts of western Bosnia where the average in some places edges 1.87) was taken in 2014 for persons 19 all the way to 32. The information you seek to include looks impressive, but to anyone who knows a few basics, its findings fall apart at every turn. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Your example (Bosnia & Herzegovina) only included university students which screws up the median. [Read the article.].LJstats (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC) LJstats confirmed sockpuppet of User:Prim96. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LJstats&diff=1110501914&oldid=1110498280
Normally yes, but not in ex-Yugoslavia. Nearly all persons end up in university there and in some parts of the world. Besides, it is not as if another study has eer taken place in Bosn-Herz that has found a similar sample but from outside of university to be less - except for the one and only other count for the nation which began its range from just 17 (so with significantly unfinished growth). Every measured state has its own sample/statistics and these are given in the table. Thereby we don't a table of estimates based on original and moreover selective research. It doesn't improve the article, and the simplest of inspection can see how the estimates are without basis. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, it's mainly Coldtrack and Fylindfotberserk, who has not been active on this article for years, against multiple users. Without a proper RfC it's hard to find a consesus. I don't like agendas or even censorship on Wikipedia.LJstats (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC) LJstats confirmed sockpuppet of User:Prim96. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LJstats&diff=1110501914&oldid=1110498280

It's not as much censorship as it is the clear opposing of an agenda. It is OR for one, inaccurate for another, and not what it says for a third. --Coldtrack (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Tongan Americans

Without prejudice concerning the insanely poxy sample size (129 persons for three nations meaning an average of 43 per group), or the fact that the figure of 1.854 is unrepresentative of the nation of Tonga, I wish to state that if the information be considered good enough to clear the WP:ONUS obstacle, then the fluke figure belongs to the United States rather than Tonga. Ditto Marshall Islands and Samoa. I would say the same for North Korea given these are now South Koreans, and as defectors, we cannot know for sure that they are representative of the whole country. But I am not implying Korea be changed at this point. Tongans are more elaborate. For example, an American citizen who identifies as Tongan does not mean he is necessarily from Tonga since 300 native ethnic Tongans live in Fiji. Where are Tongan Americans from? I am sure Tonga has some minorities also within its country, so 'Tongan' by itself means very little if we are talking about in the diaspora. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you clarify? I am not sure if you are proposing a change or something else. Yannn11 22:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Yannn11, yes sorry for late reply. Firstly I am deeply sceptical about the inclusion of what is neither an entire nation nor a verified subsection of a nation based on the count of just 25 people (in case of males). Even so, these Tongans live in the US and so the host country to provide the count is actually the United States - with a parenthesis that the sample consisted of members of the Tongan diaspora. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I agree with both points. I suggest deleting the row if there is no opposition (or at least making this a subsection of the US following the examples already in the table). Yannn11 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The first thing to do here is get the view of the person who inserted it. I'll notify him of this thread. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yannn11, sorry for the delay. I was going to need time to find out the author, and it turns out this has been yet another anonymous propagation. Not surprisingly, it has been subjected to an edit war. Here is one place it was restored, and see how anons around the time argued the sample size. Our case is strong enough. So you know it will involve the removal of two rows all relying on the same source. If the anon wishes to discuss, he is welcome. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Help needed for the Italian page Statura

Hello, The Italian correspondent page Statura (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statura) is a mess and full of mistakes, particularly in the tabel of human average in the world. I tried to use the English table, here, but it is not possible because of the protection. May I ask you if you can help me in putting the updated data in the Italian version, so the page could be improved?

About Italy: this (https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/life/giovani-nord-fa-meno-sesso-rispetto-sud-1609305.html) source about young people is the only source on these data, but I could not find the academic or official publication they wrote about. "Il Giornale" is famous for being quite sensational (the title of the article itself is doubtful).

EDIT: Working on Italian page, I carefully read the above mentioned article: the source is highly controversial and the results of heights very unrepresentative. Only 2000 students between 18-21 years old and only from Padova and Lecce have been considered. And, finally, only 891 from Lecce and 1426 from Padova. It is not possible to consider these data the "average height" of Italian young people, also because we do not know how these measures have been taken.

Thanks :) --Walther16 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I went to look at the source, and it seems either dubious or far too small a sample. I'd suggest we leave this one out.--Criticalthinker (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Just make a note of the geographical region inside the country bay (e.g. Lecce and Padova combined}. 891 is not too bad as there are many smaller samples. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

I noticed Romania has been removed from the list of height surveys and I do not know if that was an accident. 2A02:2F0B:B305:7A00:B0E1:61DD:BAEA:88F8 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The text on Romania was removed by @2a0a:a546:1821:0:594:5917:23be:2912 who stated that "https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php isn't a reliable source, same for NCD RisC." See diff. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 03:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Italy

Those Italian numbers don't seem to be on the level, do they? The survey seems pretty dubious on its face. Can anyone find the actual study and not just the reporting on it? It doesn't mention how the those surveyed were measured, or even if they were measured. And it appears that the survey's focus was drugs and sex. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Title of page is "Average human height by country" also needs Semi Protection (too many IP jumpers)

There was a similar discussion a while back. To many varying studies, from nearly every age group, from specific cities, sometimes even specific profession. The title of page is Average human height by country so then why are we including numerous very localized, age specific studies? all it does is make it confusing. keep it general. I'm all for keeping heights of various ethnicities within countries, but everything else is unneeded. Belevalo (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

I'm not asking for an edit, but fot the page to get protected status. To many IP jumpers or just one dedicated troll making disruptive edits Belevalo (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

You are a disruptive vandal, you delete properly sourced content on a daily basis.2A0A:A546:7B29:0:9035:A44F:35AC:C385 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thank you. already put in a request. as you can see one of the troll IPs is already being obnoxious even in talk. this page badly needs protection. Belevalo (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
In the last days, Belevalo deleted >100,000 bytes of sourced content. This is vandalism, no excuse – he in case follows an agenda.2A0A:A546:7B29:0:9035:A44F:35AC:C385 (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
you're forcing a whole new section that has been removed by multiple users. you are an IP hoping troll. my only agenda is quality edit and minimal glut. Belevalo (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You've deleted >20 studies prior, why? You act like Nero. Textbook vandal!Prim96 (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
You've been blocked for vandalism and the minute you're off your block, you're right back at it. studies that were either to small a sample size (below 300) or were regional. The page is Average human height by country, not random height by random regions cities. Belevalo (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Poland Numbers Ridiculous

There are two numbers for Poland, and these two numbers differ by over 6 centimetres. This is absolutely ridiculous, and demeans the whole article. I would be grateful if somebody could correct this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Thought (talk • contribs) 16:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

see the age demographics. first one is 44–69 (N= m:4336 f: 4559) people start losing height in their 40s so it skews downwards. the other one only lists is 18 yos. there's your source for discrepancy. Belevalo (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Page is protected for a couple of weeks to halt the revert wars and encourage talkpage discussion on reliable sourcing. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, it's just the one in place at the time protection was applied. Apologies to anyone who had an unrelated edit to make: if that's you please consider posting your proposed edit here using the edit-request template. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep using meters!

Ignore the other request, keep using meters, the metric system was made so that you could use the most user friendly measurement, don't change it to centimeters as some people ask, just do the world a simple favor and leave it like it is. 181.229.156.47 (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The Map

The current maps on this page are this and this: These maps clearly cite NCD RisC as their source. Specifically, they cite this site.

The issue with these maps is that they are outdated. They are based on an NCD RisC study which estimated the height of 18 year-olds in 2014 (who were born in 1996). Their data is 8 years old. NCD RisC released updated data in 2020, which measured the height of 19 year olds in 2019 (see here and here). These maps (for 19 year-old men and 19 year-old women) are based on that newer NCD RisC data. In fact, if you actually go to the source which the outdated maps site, and you download the country data, you will see the 2019 data present. It makes no sense to keep using these old, outdated maps if there is newer data from the same source available. Of course, if NCD RisC is an unreliable source, then none of its maps should be used. However, as long as we use the NCD RisC maps, we should use the maps based on their most recent data (this one and this one).

I say this with emphasis because people have been replacing the new maps with the old maps. The reasons they cite for their replacements do not make much sense. Most recently, 79.126.18.72 reverted to using the old maps again with the comment that "these maps have nothing to do with the height table." What height table? If you are talking about the table on the Wikipedia page, then none of the maps which have been used for this page reflect that table, because those maps are based on NCD RisC data, not the data on this Wikipedia page. Either use the NCD RisC maps or don't, but if we use the NCD RisC map, we should use their most recent, up-to-date data.

If no one responds to this in a day, I will change the map back to the ones which reflect the new data. To those who insist on using the outdated NCD RisC data, please explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratata6789 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

India

Not only do the Indian numbers seem wrong just anecdotally, but while various news agencies report on this "177cm(5.8ft)" for men, the actual report they link to does not give height figures. I can't even find the full report; and media reporting seems to be all over the place concerning what study was used for which criteria. I'd suggest removing this until this can be figured out. It is simply not possible for those numbers to be correct.--Criticalthinker (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I posted this as someone was correcting it. But while I'm here, the Moscow height also needs better sourcing. Media often doesn't know how to read scientific reports, so it's my opinion we only add these kind of entries if we have the actual studies to back them up. If someone could find the actual study reported on for Moscow - which also seems to be entered incorrectly; it appears the year-of-birth for those measured is confused with when the study was taken - that'd be great. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker:, seems like someone is posting that study again. Might want to check it out and see if it should be removed again. -Imcdc (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Please update the height for 177 cm (5 feet 9 inches) for male and 162 cm (5 feet 3 inches) for India RayAdvait (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does USA get to split out its population by ethnic group, when others don't?

Seems inappropriate to divide up your population by 'race'. 2A01:4B00:89D7:F700:38FB:BE79:6D6:D884 (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Because those were the samples for each study. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Bosnia data is very biased

Seriously guys? You are going to list the average height of 200 students from a specific generation as the country average? Bear in mind that BiH is not a rich country and the socio-economic background you come from, which is correlated to how much you've grown, will influence whether or not you go to university. In other words- university students are not representatives of the population. The test group is way too small. And the age is not varied enough. I would strongly suggest to find a new source. As a comparison we measured the heights of all males and females in my Biology Course in the Netherlands. Male average was 186cm. The sample size was similar to the Bosnian one. Get a better source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.186.222 (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The study went ahead and that was its findings. Many would argue that the figure is too low given how huge the people of Herzegovina and the western side of Bosnia are. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Serbia

@Theonewithreason Share of pop. over 18 covered, does not mean that you have to divide the sample size by the countries population.LJstats (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2022 (UTC) LJstats confirmed sockpuppet of User:Prim96. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LJstats&diff=1110501914&oldid=1110498280

It also does not mean that it covers 97% of population, especially if the source does not say that.Theonewithreason (talk) 18:11 26.May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2022

I would like to add Romania in this chart, according to this average height presented at this link: https://www.worlddata.info/average-bodyheight.php 2A02:2F09:F103:EE00:FCDC:CBF6:4136:206A (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page is locked for addition of poorly sourced content, that page contradicts some of the sourced content on the page already. Fbifriday (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of content by Goggo2022

Multiple editors have been undoing Goggo2022's deletion of sourced data. There has been no discussion of the issue. I'm not involved, but I was pinged to look a the issue. I have left an edit warring warning for Goggo2022 and started this thread. Meters (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Meters. Hopefully he will see sense and there be no need for sanctioning or unpleasant drama. Having looked at the items removed, I don't personally see a problem with any of them. That is not to say that some may not be better off removed. I have removed some myself in the past, namely these entries. What are they? Tongolese, or American? And what is a sample of 25 males and 27 females? All I can suggest Goggo2022 do is take each case one by one and enable the community to agree what can stay and what needs to go. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

New representative Data for Germany - 2017, selfreported - 1% random sample of population

Heigth and Weight male https://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe/!pkg_olap_tables.prc_set_page?p_uid=gastd&p_aid=19101830&p_sprache=D&p_help=2&p_indnr=223&p_ansnr=74501978&p_version=2&D.000=3739&D.003=42 female https://www.gbe-bund.de/gbe/!pkg_olap_tables.prc_set_page?p_uid=gastd&p_aid=19101830&p_sprache=D&p_help=2&p_indnr=223&p_ansnr=74501978&p_version=3&D.000=3739&D.003=43 164.133.154.130 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Romania is not included in this chart

Title says it all. 84.69.209.163 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You are more than free to search for a height study for this country. Criticalthinker (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

norway

whys norway there twice 🥺 36.93.37.154 (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

ghosted yet again ): 36.93.37.154 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You haven't been ghosted, it's just a bad question. Multiple countries have multiple entries. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@36.93.37.154. Sorry that nobody initially replied to you. Each entry will represent a sample that varies from the other. Without looking (but I look at the list from time to time), Norway has a higher figure for a younger sample, and a lower figure for a more comprehensive sample that includes older people. Basically, when a newer study containing the same range as one previous takes place, the results will supersede the previous and in that case, yes, it should be just one and not both. I hope that helps. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! Appreciate the answer! 36.93.37.154 (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


Request for comment

Should we include or don't include a table from a source, and image captions from that source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31859-6/fulltext . This reports the work of contributors and findings so as to estimate the average height of 19-year olds across "193 countries" as at 2019 per median average. It claims to have used data from 1985 to 2019.

For simplicity, here is an example of how it would be if the material were included. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Don't include. I fully appreciate that somebody more than one year ago took time and effort to create the table, and on the optics yes it does rely on what looks like a reliable source. Per WP:ONUS, it is not difficult to see the very claim (Wikipedia edit) that in 2019, 19-year olds per country demonstrated these figures, is an example of WP:SYNTH. On this article is a table of countries/regions that report an average height taken at a certain time by a certain team, with a certain sample (e.g. rural vs urban) involving age range and often even down to residents of a single city. The Accuracy heading gives five caveats as to why even the presented material should be taken with a pinch of salt. In short, there was simply never a campaign as is reported whereby a delegation travelled to 193 regions over 34 years to get data so as to work out what 19-year olds will be in 2019, the same year the research is purported to have ended. This project has taken a selection of material to which you and I have access largely through the en.wikipedia repository, and have processed estimates. The problems are endless: the figure for Netherlands (183.8 males) is from a finding for 21-year olds in 2009. Montenegro is a country that before 2006 was not even independent and for which there have only ever been two surveys, one at 1.832 for males going all the way to 36, and 1.829 for males that begin from 18 and have unfinished growth. Bosnia & Herzegovina (because of Herzegovina and western Bosnia) has already produced a figure that has edged the 2009 Netherlands figure in that it has reported a male average of 1.8387 in 2014. But what's more, the Montenegrin and Bosnian figures are for mean average. Mean and median are not the same. Mean requires a steady hand on the calculator (to put it simply) while median just means you lay out the numbers and gravitate straight for the middle. So who then measured Montenegrins and gave us a median figure so we could determine what their 19-year olds will be in 2019? If it had been as woefully simplistc as data being available for countries not yet independent from as early as 1985 and we had been able to lay out the numbers in the line just to take the middle figure, who would have needed to travel to Benin in 2015, and to Czechia in 2001, etc. Our only data on North Korea is from defectors. Lithuania reports urban and rural differently and it is nobody's job to find some middle ground there. Pakistan gives a national count, but produces a figure for Rabwah alone. Where do we suddenly find a source that claims to know everything?!?!?! --Coldtrack (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

*Include. Methods Data sources For this pooled analysis, we used a database of cardiometabolic risk factors collated by the Non-Communicable Disease Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC). The database and its criteria for data inclusion and exclusion are described in the appendix [pp 39-42]. We used data from the NCD-RisC database from 1985 to 2019 for analysis of BMI and from 1971 to 2019 for analysis of height. Children aged 5 years in data from 1971 were born in 1966, and hence were 19 years old in 1985, as were children aged 6 years in data from 1972 through to 19-year-old adolescents in data from 1985. Additionally, for analysis of height, participants aged 20–30 years were included and assigned to their corresponding birth cohort, because mean height in these ages would be at least that when they were aged 19 years, given that the decline of height with age begins in the third and fourth decades of life. The inclusion of data from different years provided multiple observations of each birth cohort during their life course, which in turn helped to estimate the relevant parameters in the height model that used birth year as its time scale. A list of the data sources we used in this analysis and their characteristics is provided in the appendix [pp 49-89]. Primary outcomes Our primary outcomes were population mean height and mean BMI from ages 5 to 19 years. BMI accounts for the weight gain that is simply due to becoming taller, and hence measures being underweight or overweight for a person's height. When presenting results, we refer to gains in height as a healthy trend because the relationship between height and health is positive and continuous. We refer to BMI gain as unhealthy except in countries where mean BMI was more than 1 SD lower than the median of the WHO reference (ie, lower than 18·7 kg/m2 for girls and 19·6 kg/m2 for boys at age 19 years). We also compared mean height and BMI with the median of the WHO growth reference12 (appendix [pp 90-93]) at each age from 5 to 19 years. We used the WHO reference because it provides growth curves for both height and BMI and is used for monitoring in most countries. We started our analysis from age 5 years because children enter school at or around this age, and their nutrition, physical activity, and health are influenced by food and environment at their homes, schools, and communities. Statistical analysis We used a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate mean height and mean BMI by country, year, sex, and age. The model is described in detail in a statistical paper13 and related substantive papers11 , 14 and is summarised in the appendix [pp 43-45]. Briefly, the model had a hierarchical structure in which estimates for each country and year were informed by its own data, if available, and by data from other years in the same country and from other countries, especially those in the same region and super-region, with data for similar time periods. The extent to which estimates for each country-year were influenced by data from other years and other countries depended on whether the country had data, the sample size of the data, whether they were national, and the within-country and within-region variability of the available data. The model allowed for non-linear time trends and non-linear changes in mean height and BMI with age, including periods of rapid growth during puberty, and the earlier age of these growth spurts in girls than in boys. We used observation year—the year in which data were collected—as the time scale for the analysis of BMI and birth year as the time scale for the analysis of height, consistent with previous analyses.11 , 14 For BMI, substantial societal changes that affect nutrition and physical activity might affect children of different ages simultaneously, whereas for height, these effects accumulate in each birth cohort and a cohort's height-for-age monotonically increases from childhood to late adolescence. The computer code for the model is available online, as are our country and regional estimates both in numerical format and as interactive visualisations. All analyses were done with R (version 3.5.1). Role of the funding source The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the paper. Country and Regional Data Group members, ARM, BZ, and MS had full access to the data in the study. The corresponding author had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.LJstats (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Respond to Coldtrack

Respond to LJstats. Your lengthier comment is verbal drooling due to the fact it is nothing more than a regurgitation of the information lifted from the source itself which does not address the topic of WP:ONUS. Firstly with regards Bosnia-Herzegovina, you seem to conflate an observation (not a proven fact) with a personal interpretation. Yes students formed the basis, but no, that does not prove that the mean is higher, lower or the same as what it might have been otherwise. An individual is said to have measured taller when in his survey he declares that both his parents went to university - not whether he is a university student himself. Furthermore, your source does not produce alternative figures for Bosnia-Herzegovina, median nor mean, and so its raw claim (19-year olds are 182.5 in 2019) cannot be scrutinised. Our only information on North Korea on the main table is defectors, and your source gives no information as to how it obtained other information. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
PS. You don't even know that the site and info you wish to include considered the Bosnian figure from university. Your argument is pure WP:SYNTH because you have made that connection yourself. To summarise, you don't get to produce a figure for a nation's median average, not even as an estimate, when no count was ever taken in the first place. Your source claims to have used data going back to 1985 and ending 2019. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
PS. In response to your edit summary - where is your evidence I am driven by an agenda? The only person/s driven by an agenda are those adamant to insert a table stuffed to the gills with synthetic findings that cannot be scrutinised. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

*Do NOT include. Complete list of fake numbers that don't stand up to examination. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Include A team of over 1,000 scientists analyzed over 2,000 scientifically-conducted measurement-based studies covering over 65 Million participants worldwide in order to estimate the average height of children and teenagers by age and sex across each country in the world every single year from 1985 to 2019. You can see the team's exact methodology and a list of all the different studies they used if you'd just read through the study, which is not only rigorous but has been published in The Lancet and has been cited nearly 100 times.
I do not see how this violates WP:ONUS, especially when considering what the precedence is. Typically, country lists on Wikipedia take in data from international or extragovernmental organizations in order to fill in gaps in the data. Just take a look at Lists on GDP or lists on country population. Should we discount the data collated by the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank since they didn't directly conduct demographic or economic censuses and surveys in the countries for which they provide data? The NCD-RisC itself works closely with the World Bank and is a generally trusted source by the scientific community anyway.
This data is also not "out of date". It was published in 2020 and includes data from 2019. More than 90% of the figures on the current table are from before this time period.
It is disingenuous to leave out the results of the largest scientific study conducted on human height publicly and easily available for us. We can keep the rest of the snippets of governmental data in their own table, but for the vast majority of countries on Earth (which do not have up-to-date information, and in many cases, have no information at all), it would definitely be prudent to also utilize figures from this study.
Obviously averaging and modelling the results of all these studies, every single one of which measured on average hundreds or thousands of people is much better than simply taking one study as the gospel, as the current table does (and these studies aren't even highlighted as "representative of the majority of the country's population" a lot of the time). The results of the study are more accurate than what we have on the current table, far more meaningful, and not at all selective.
The fact that you alone have been arguing against multiple users for years makes me think you have some national interest in keeping those Montenegro numbers the way they are, and that's why you care so much about this. For previous users you can see mine and Coldtrack's discussion over here. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment. The above information from Abbasi786786 is again lifted from the source he fights hand over fist to include. It does not address the challenge of WP:ONUS, and nor does it expand upon from where it found a median figure for Montenegro when only two surveys have ever taken place there, and recorded mean averages, and even then the source he wishes to include does not line up with the findings for mean. --Coldtrack (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
PS. ONUS is not something you violate. It is a challenge to any editor who hides behind the idea that just because a source says something, it needs to be included. On this occasion, Abbasi786786 was challenged to provide a list of findings as long as both your arms. For example, North Korea has given us a figure based on defectors measured in South Korea. That's all we know about North Korea. LJstats says that all men perform national service and so the statistics are recorded, but since when did this one thousand analysts requisition personal data from Pyongyang's office cabinets? And what about the women? The table of figures is 100% baseless until Abbasi786786 and LJstats demonstrate why anybody should believe in the accuracy. --Coldtrack (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie The argument against this is that per ONUS there is no evidence that those are "estimates", just a raw claim. Read my reply to Alaexis. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't find your arguments to be convincing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Ohnoitsjamie So are you claiming that the source has access to surveys that never took place? Or are you claiming that the source has forged a synthesis between the findings of the table and the median height of 19-year olds? If you don't find my argument convincing, then it's one or the other... I'd like to know which you claim. --Coldtrack (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Include. The Lancet is a high-quality source. I think that most of these measurements are sample-based and there is nothing wrong with it. For the cases like North Korea we should have notes explaining why the numbers are less reliable. Alaexis¿question? 19:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Alaexis. Thanks for the suggestion with is worth considering. There is WP:ONUS. It is not just North Korea that would neeed a note stating why it is less, or more precisely NOT reliable, but for the entire list. I can provide similar information for every ex-Warsaw Pact and former socialist region. The reason North Korea, Montenegro, Bosnia, etc. are not reliable are because the source does not even provide details as to how it "estimated" the figures in question when it doesn't even give us the information to scrutinise, for example, in Bosnia's case, if a median of 1,500 students in Sarajevo aged 19 was 1.805 in 1999, and then another 1,498 were 1.815 in 2009, then one can see how in 2019 without measuring that the estimate will be 1.825 - but what does the source give us to go on? Such surveys have never even happened!!!! --Coldtrack (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Coldtrack: It tells us exactly what to go on lol
This is willfull ignorance at this point
"Such surveys never even happened" let me cite them to you
Bosnia:
164 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2002 Non-communicable disease risk factor survey, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Subnational Both 25-64 25-64 73 148 165 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2012 Non-communicable disease risk factor survey, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Subnational Rural 18+ 18+ 272 238 50 38 166 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2012 Non-communicable disease risk factor survey, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Subnational Urban 18+ 18+ 136 133 22 1
I've also cited the lists for Montenegro and India when you asked for those. Every single list of all the studies is available here. It's pretty easy to see: https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31859-6/attachment/379a3bc8-9b5e-4001-bf64-f08a27a75099/mmc1.pdf
-- Abbasi786786 (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Abbasi786786. Cut the verbal drooling. Give me the figures that led to the "estimate". I want the age range and sample background as your source viewed those figures from 2012 in Bosnia so we can see the correlation between how growth was being recorded and why their "estimate" in 2019 was reasonable, and the same for Montenegro. I want to know what they based their "findings" on, not the title of a report sheet. This way at least if your table stays we can add footnotes to what has been overlooked. To this end, only you have demonstrated willful ignorance through the fact I presented this challenge to you some weeks back, and you buried your head in the sand rather than replying or admitting you are stuck. Incidentally, your own knuckles are dragging the ground over Bosnia-Herzegovina and so is Lancet's if you think "Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina" is the constitutional name of the country. It is a subunit of the country: go click the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina link. You are exposing yourself every time you leave a comment. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
PS. Abbasi. For a start, what did the 1200 Montenegro 1988 Anthropometric Characteristics of Montenegrin Recruiters from '70 and 80's National Both 17-28 86 86 report? --Coldtrack (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. As this is a scientific and not political article, I agree that the figures must stand up to inspection. To include the list otherwise will have to impel commentary that acknowledges two things. A) Public has no access to data, and B) Findings do not line up with known published studies which can be probed and researched by anybody. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Include per Alaexis. Sorry Coldtrack. I say we include but we rewrite the text immensely to highlight the obscurantism and the inability of the public to access the alleged information (i.e. the figures), and most of all that it does not line up with data that negates so many of the claimed numbers. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Juicy Oranges: I won't conceal my disappointment JO. It was you who originally stated "fake numbers" and not standing up to examination, not me. Now to suddenly say you support the inclusion of the table is retrograde and unhelpful. Sure it can be rewritten, and it would have to be rewritten so far down to the ground that readers are going to be confused, "why are we being told this?". --Coldtrack (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Share of pop. over 18

How are the percentages for the share of pop. over 18 calculated? Diglettutor (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

South Sudan

Since Sudan is listed in the countries section, I was surprised that South Sudan was not listed also. Does anyone have info on the data from South Sudan, and if so shouldn't it be added?Mannysophia (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2022

The height conversions are incorrect, I am not sure if this is a problem in the template but I thought I should flag it. Sacredgeometry (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. How exactly are they incorrect? 💜  melecie  talk - 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2023

German Federal Statistics Office published a 2021 microcensus update on body heights: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Gesundheitszustand-Relevantes-Verhalten/Tabellen/liste-koerpermasse.html#119168 with a larger sample size and more recent values than the current entry Ranapithecus (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hence I suggest to change
|- style="background:#cbfecb; color:#555;"
| Germany || 178.9 cm (5 ft 10+1⁄2 in) || 165.9 cm (5 ft 5+1⁄2 in) || 1.08 || 18+ (N= m:33,751 f:35,003)|| 100.0% || Self-reported || 2009 || [1]
|-
P.S. I think the column "Share of pop. over 18 covered" is mostly used in an inconsitent way: e.g. line Brazil reports m:62,037 f:65,696 (total 127,733) participants and 100% of covered population. Yet, total population in the same year was 195 mio. inhabitants. Ranapithecus (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Mikrozensus – Gesundheitszustand und -relevantes Verhalten - Körpermaße nach Altersgruppen und Geschlecht". Statistisches Bundesamt, Wiesbaden. 2021. Retrieved 2023-01-05.
 Done small jars tc 22:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Average_human_height_by_country/Archive_2&oldid=1150192879"