Talk:Height discrimination

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Height discrimination article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1907. "The Tall Girl Problem: How Will Chicago Society Solve It?" Part 1 - Part 2

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Expunge Eugenic References

This article contains multiple references to speculative, unsubstantiated, and pseudo-scientific Eugenic theories that justify height discrimination through evolutionary fitness. At the very least the references need to be tightly boxed with emphasized critiques. Specifically, the reference's proposed measures of fitness, such as achievement scores, mate selection, academic, professional, and financial advancement, are all confounded by strong psycho-social negative feed-backs due to preexisting bigotry and prejudice.

--2604:3D09:1F7A:4A00:DD46:659A:9B83:1034 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Aaron Sheldon 165cm[reply]

Article

--Inconsistency between wikipedia articles-- (Flag this if possible if you know how)

Excerpt from Heightism article: "Moreover, of the 54 U.S. presidential elections only 13 have been won by the shorter candidate, and only 11 times has the shorter candidate received more popular (as opposed to electoral) votes. "

Excerpt from Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. "In reality, for the 46 elections in which the height of which both candidates is known, the taller candidate won 25 times (approximately 54 percent of the time), the shorter candidate won 18 times (approximately 39 percent of the time) and the candidates were the same height three times (about 7 percent of the time)."

Statistically this difference is drastic, the former claim would indicate with 99% certainty that there is a heightism difference, and the latter would indicate with 18% certainty (by my admittedly amateur calculations -- binomial test). --Alex Rohde 2/17/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.71.84 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little problem with this article

I've been reading it and I'd have to say that some of the old comments below have a point that this article is fixated on how shorter people suffer. Sure, it's true that they do, but the grass is not always greener on the other side and being tall doesn't mean you have everything. I'm 6'2.5" myself and believe me when I say heightism affects us too as the manufacture of consumer products, households, clothes, vehicles, and some public areas are made for those of less than people like me and we have to sometimes deal with the Little Man Syndrome from short guys who have something to prove and some other social consequences. I've dealt with this kind of thing before, so I know it's true.

But for the sake of this being Wikipedia, I know you'd have to have citations and if I could find a good source that would prove social disadvantages of being height privledged, I would, but I'm really rather not good at sourcing. But all the same, the article needs some serious adjusting to allow for heightism involving us as, despite the intro leaving it open for both to be victims, it's clearly biased. If I'm not mistaken, that may potentially be against Wikipedia's rules anyways. Vgamer101 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting view point: I often have the problem myself that kitchen sinks and similar are highly unergonomical for someone of my height, forcing me to either bend my back awkwardly or to stand with bent knees. (Notably, at 1.90 I am tall, but not extremely tall.)88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear that. I'm 6"3 and get crap off short people all the time. I've recently decided to take up boxing just to circumvent it ... this is true and I can't believe I said it :\ I guess in populations were shortness is the norm, like Japan and in my case Ireland, people sort of view it as a social oddity ... at least that's my take. 86.47.14.214 (talk)

86.47.14.214 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Little Man Syndrome is better translated as "sit down and shut up short person, know your place". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.206.123 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

It seems to me that all of most of the material in this article could be merged into the "Role of an individual's height" section of the "Human height" article. Thoughts? Bdrasin 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think that the material needs to be merged. Heightism is a distinct social problem that is only tangentially related to human height. If the aggregate height of a population rises, heightism still exists. If the aggregate height of a population shrinks, heightism still exists. The "Role of height" does not seem to capture the issue of heightism. Heightism deserves a separate article.Geoffrey Arnold 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter Points to Address

+ vast majority of tall people are african americans.. a high percentage of African americans make up the prison population, maybe someone could write about this correlation? We always hear about height being a causal factor for success, one could also make the same case that height is a causal factor for going to prison. Both arguments are equally absurd. I believe the correlation with success should be removed. If it is included, someone should write about the correlation associated with being tall and committing a felony and going to prison. Just a caveat I believe the editors should be cognizant of and address on the page.

+ michael jackson who sucks, martin sheen in wallstreet, and quite a few big shots on wallstreet are relatively smaller statured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.110.164 (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ It's simply not true that the vast majority of tall people are African American or even that the majority of African Americans are tall. That is just a stereotype produced by the fact that many in the NBA are African American. According to the CDC, American whites are still slightly taller than American blacks on average. But it's only by a few centimeters. There is barely any difference in aggregate height between whites and blacks in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.85.250 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, this would be a highly US-centric POV: Most other societies have very few African-Americans, and outside of Africa most do not even have noticeably many black people.88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heightism?

OK, so whenever I feel bad about my physical or social distinctiveness, I should slap an "-ism" tag on it, just to cause others feel bad about me feeling bad? Wow, way to go. No, I am not small - THEY are heightists! No, I am not black - THEY are racists! No, I am not uneducated - THEY are elitists! No, I am not fat - THEY are weightists! (does that word actually exit? If not, soon it will be...) Now, what's next? Soldiers in the army will be all equal to each other, because they will fear of being declared rankists? You know, lower ranks are often at risk for bullying! Damned rankists - boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew! :-) --194.108.186.216 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently you believe that black people invented the idea of racism because they felt bad about being black? Unless you're joking. Those smileys can be hard to place. Especially the winking ones. What, are they winking sexually or in a purely platonic manner? I can't tell. Who knows?

Tall women seeking tall men, mistakenly?

It's worth noting that tall women sometimes seek tall men only because they assume (wrongfully) that shorter men won't be interested.

This may be true, but I think we'd need evidence. If this is true than this would be an example of discrimination against tall people, in this case tall women (or more precisely the tall woman's anticipation that she will be discriminated against). I'm also not at all sure that a tall woman making this assumption would be wrong; I think that heighist discrimination against tall women probably really does exist and ought to be discussed somewhere in this article. This paragraph is too subjective and non-encyclopedic however. If someone can provide some sources for this I'd be happy to work on such a section; I'm mostly familliar with anti-short-man discrimination for reasons which you can probably guess ;-)

I think they are rather accurate to think that, most men are intimidated by older women and desire a dominant role in a relationship. Some can only attain this by obvious things such as height. Still, they are mistaken to rule it out, as many men get past this. Tyciol 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the statement "most men are intimidated by older women" is really true.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acting in a certain way due to an unfounded fear of discrimination does not constitute discrimation in any form or way.88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the Wiki-user above stated with this discussion, there is a definite need for citations & sources. The discussion of heightism and marriage has additional problems.

Heightism may also be a factor in dating preferences. For most women, the height of a man is a major factor in sexual attractiveness.:

These are weasel words. Needs cited sources or needs to be removed as opinion.

No: Source are only needed (as opposed to nice-to-have) when they state something that is likely to be challenged (at the time of writing) or is validly challenged (at a later point). As is, it is very well-known that women (on average) have a strong preference for taller men, and it would be up to the dissenter to prove otherwise. Similarly, the claim that Michael Jordan is/was a basket-ball player does not need to be referenced.

Conversely, studies have shown that women of below average height are more likely to be married and have children than women of above average height.:

If the author is going to refer to a study then, again, the study must be cited. Also, I am unclear as the POV of this section. Is it to discuss discrimination against short people or discrimination against tall people? Granted, there is discrimination towards anyone who is not "of the norm" but this article needs to find a focus. This doesn't mean that both sides aren't worthy of discussion but I find the bouncing between both POVs to be confusing and weakens the argument.

Quantitative studies of woman-for-men personal advertisements have shown strong preference for tall men, with a large percentage indicating that a man significantly below average height was unacceptable.[18] One example is male model Fabio Lanzoni, better known as “Fabio”, who famously appears on romance novel covers and stands 1.98m (6′6″).:

The use of Fabio as proof of women's preference for taller men is strictly anecdotal. There are too many factors regarding why Fabio is on romance covers -- race, body type (weight and/musculature), facial structure, age, etc. -- and people like Danny DeVito or John Goodman are not for it to be a clear example of heightism. RMBJustice 15:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Danny DeVito is a good example of someone who goes over surprisingly well with many women, despite height and weight.88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about males like me who prefer taller females than myself (albeit hard to find), and slightly older? I would never date some 5" shorter than myself. And I'm not the only one... I believe other shy/anxiety males favor this too. 71.228.57.113 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion beyond short man discrimination

I have added a request for expansion; the article right now deals mostly with discrimination against short men. If there ARE no other forms of heightism (I doubt it) then the intro to the article should be revised accordingly. --Bdrasin 02:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Anyway, heightism exists in a continuum of forms - which actually occur in practice is another matter. As it says, "however in principle and occasionally in practice it can refer to unfavorable treatment of unusually tall people". The problem is that it gives no examples. And indeed, three of the sections are effectively singling out men to talk about - we could do with more stuff relating to women and children. -- Smjg 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think showing discrimination against tall people would be important too. Think of what Andre the Giant went through. Albeit, that was perhaps moreso due to rotundness as well, but it still happens a lot to beanpoles, if you pardon the slang. Tyciol 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, you seem to have engaged in a little bit of it there with your use of a word such as 'beanpole'. the level of privilege enjoyed by the 6' 2" CEO's (who are 'desirably' tall because that height is still generally well-proportioned) mentioned in this article does not necessarily carry over to people of uncommonly great height. One must take into account body proportions above heights like 6' 4"...which begin to look more and more awkward. speaking only as someone who is 6 foot 5.5 life is difficult enough for me. clothes, shoes, cars, houses, pretty much everything is not designed for someone even of my height. to find out more about the difficulties faced by uncommonly tall people (also a form of heightism) one need look no further than the list on wikipedia.

List_of_tall_men Gigantism

Height Discrimination against tall men

Height Discrimination against tall men certainly exists.

For example, a perfectly law-abiding, gentle, man of 6'6" can experience stereotyping of being deemed by some people as aggressive and scary and frightening at first impression just because of his height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:3190:D900:5C05:15EB:6D0:A9AC (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short children at risk for bullying

WRT children, it should be easy to find evidence that shorter children are more at risk of bullying.

WRT anti-tall person discrimination, I'm sure there is some material there somewhere but I haven't been able to find, beyond people complaining about airline seats and difficulties finding clothes. I suspect that anti-tall person discrimination is like anti-white racism (at least in the US): it undoubtedly exists, but is so marginal that it is practicaly unstudied Bdrasin 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are the studies that anybody has found specifically about anti-short heightism or anti-tall heightism? Or do they study heightism in general, with the result being that anti-short heightism predominates within the scope of the study? I guess it depends on what the scope is and the height range of participants in the study. But either way, the number of holes in the article as it stands warrants a POV tag IMO. -- Smjg 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest what changes would make the article NPOV? I've tried to characterise the data I could find as fairly as I can. What are these "holes", and what can you offer to fill them? Are you saying that the links referenced do not support the conclusions in the article, or are you saying that there is other evidence that is not being considered that you think ought to be included (and if so, please point me to this information)? As for the question of if the studies we are referencing here are biased, and the height ranges of participants in the studies, please see the external documents being cited; in particular you will want to read http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/~persico/research/Papers/short.pdf and http://www.essex.ac.uk/ilr/eeeg/Conference1/Harper.pdf, which are both peer-reviewed academic papers. Wikipedia isn't the place to do origional research; all we can do is present the availible evidence as fairly as possible. Bdrasin 22:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The holes are exactly what I already said: we need some content relating to anti-tall discrimination and to heightism targeted towards women and children and not just men. At the moment only sections 1 and 5 border on being gender-neutral, section 2 focuses implicitly on men and sections 3 and 4 focus explicitly on men. And all sections focus on adults rather than children. Anything that meaningfully redresses the balance would be an improvement. At the moment I don't know what this content is, but I'm sure somebody can find some. -- Smjg 10:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tall discrimination is limited toward women and pretty much focuses on their desirability as a romantic partner. Search for someting about evolution favoring petite or short women and you'll find lots (something here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2190461.stm). Other than that this article agrees with all scientific data on the subject. Tall men aren't discriminated against, which is supported by every study on the subject. As a tall man myself (and someone who studies attraction theory), I can sadly say this is true. The NNPOV warning should be removed immediately.

I'm adding some information re: tall women's romantic desirablilty and a blurb on bullying, which should satify the NNPOV complaint. If you can suggest any attraction theory supporting the contents of the article feel free to link to it here as it is germane to the subject matter.Bdrasin 18:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for short children & bullying I am adding information that disputes what has been written thus far. From Morning Edition, Tuesday , September 07, 2004 A new study in the journal Pediatrics finds that, contrary to the prevailing belief, children who are especially short do not have a harder time making friends and adjusting socially than children of average height. NPR's Michelle Trudeau reports. Listen to the segment at this link: [[1]]--RMBJustice 22:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOSSA Heightism message boards

Persons experiencing heightism can visit the heightism messageboards by NOSSA. //heightism.aimoo.com I also recommend the website shortsupport.org

Does it, despite the name, support people picked on both for being short and for being tall? :-) -- Smjg 12:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some tall-centric websites (tall.org, tallclub.co.uk, tallwomen.org), but they seem to be focused on clothing/airline seat type issues, social events, etc. rather than discrimination. Heightism in practice really seems to be targeted at short people, and most particularly at short men. Bdrasin 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Famous tall/short bias

Is it just me, or is having a list of "famous tall men/women" clearly biased? Should there not also be a list of "famous short men/women"?

These lists do exist now.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Femininity versus tallness lack

As a tall woman who has her femininity questioned on at least a weekly basis, I'm somewhat surprized that this doesn't come up in the article. Has anyone found studies relevant to this?

The dating & marriage section covers this somewhat. Does this "questioning of femininity" come up in other situations?

Height and intelligence relationship

What do you guys think would be the cause of this? I think perhaps it might be somewhat related to the observed lack of self esteem. Those who lack esteem might not be motivated to learn as much, thinking themself tiny and stupid. I doubt it would be much due to brain size, as guys like Einstein often had small brains. The larger brain-intelligence (and lifespan) link is more based upon RATIO of brain mass to body mass, not upon total brain size. Possibly also, would be a bias in classrooms. If you're short, perhaps you'd have trouble seeing the board over tall people's heads and be embarassed to bring it up, much like nearsighted people who are embarassed to get glasses. Also, maybe teachers would not call upon short people as often? Tyciol 22:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence is not a measure of how much one knows but of how fast one learns, thus intelligence is not directly related to being able to see the black board, though low self-esteem my be related --Oxinabox1 01:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, intelligence is definitely distinct from knowledge.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Anne Case and Christina Paxson's research ever go under academic review? If so, I've never seen it.

I find the idea that shorter people are intrinsically less intelligent very interesting but ridiculous. It's no different than similar "scientific" studies that were done against Blacks, decades ago. Plus, I understand that Case and Paxson are economist, rather than scientists. And finally, I distinctly remember this research being done well before Case and Paxson came along. However, back then, the data was used to discredit the IQ test. Some researchers realized that the IQ tests correlated more closely with height than it did with income or grades. So they labeled the IQ test more of a "height indicator" than an "intelligence test" (thus ridiculing it as "junk science"). Now we've come full circle. Now, the same concept is used to say that the IQ test is sound, but it's just that smarter people tend to be taller.Geoffrey Arnold 04:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heightism in politics

Initially, both Hitler and Dollfuss were the results of democratic elections. Both became chancellors, but once in office they overthrew the parliament and became dictators. So I do not think they should be listed in the non-electoral column. 62.143.202.16 08:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What no Danny DeVito?

I'm surprised that Danny DeVito isn't in the "Heightism in the media" section. Not only is he much shorter* than Tom Cruise and Michael J Fox, he has been equally - if not more - successful.

Shouldn't we, ahem, "big him up" a little?

OK, so it's a dodgy source, but according to http://members.shaw.ca/harbord/heights.html we have:

-Danny DeVito 5'0"
-Tom Cruise 5'7"
-Michael J. Fox 5'4"

PS. At least in a school environment, unusually tall children are also bullied.
138.243.129.4 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, unusually tall children, particularly boys are rarely bullied because they are often much stronger than their peers. It may be a different story for girls though because female bullying is often social and not physical.

Citation needed

"Taller people may also have a tendency to be awkward, clumsy and ungainly. In more recent years, especially among young people, this has led to an increase in these people being labelled "creepy."" -Cite the creepy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Disadvantage of Tallness

This section has no purpose. It is merely opinion and needs to be removed.--RMBJustice 22:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. It gives the impression that short people have a thing against tall people, so much so they have to include the "disadvantages of tallness". --Triedandtested 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's valid 82.35.208.43 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read that section since it is no longer in the article. However I am unusually tall. I do get hostility and discrimination from short people. I also get name-calling about my height (although seldom from short people probably because of the "if you live in glass houses dont throw stones" principal). Some power-orientated people appear to see unusually tall men as a threat to their dominance and are very hostile. There is also the problem of finding clothes that fit. I, and every other unusually tall person I have ever heard of, do not intend to have children, as they would suffer. Peoples comments on the internet suggest that young men in particular find being unusually tall very distressing and disturbing. I wish there was some systematic medical screening and treatment that had prevented me becoming unusually tall - my life would be very much happier and very different. 80.2.193.67 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the things you have mentioned are...no offence...minor annoyances that you are blowing out of proportion (Not having children? Really?). Contrast this with, for example, the negative portrayals in the media, the fact that almost every single insult involves the word "little" and the fact that anytime you assert yourself you are assumed to have a mental disorder (napoleonic complex) and I think you'll see it's a bit different. Funny how short people suffer so much abuse and don't whine as much about it as the fatties who at least have a choice in the matter. 59.38.32.9 (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many overweight people really have no choice about their weight for genetic or psychological reasons.--46.9.12.58 (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdist humor?

Is this article an exercise in some sort of absurdist humor, or is it a legitimate proposal that is expected to be taken seriously? It's rather difficult to decipher, especially because the article itself seems to have been written by men who describe themselves as short. Perhaps the more pertinent question is whether an article based upon amateur sociology and pop psychology is truly encyclopedic...

This has to be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Geoffrey Arnold 04:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it either way you want not that an opinon of a fool matters. What exactly are your own credentials, that you take it upon yourself to discourage this article as "amateur" and "pop"? Do you even understand what those words mean? Considering that you have to "dechiper" a text which is written in plain english... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.118.139.46 (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heightism is Real and Deserves a Separate Article

It is obvious that to most people, particularly those with less education, taller is better. This is due to the fact that in early stages of human evolution a bigger, taller male could best protect and provide for his family unit or tribe. Also, this stems from the fact that at early stages of childhood, every important individual in that child's life who provides for, protects, and has authority over them is bigger than them. These two provide an ingrained psychological mindset that taller is better, even if extreme implications arise if taken to the max. This needs to be addressed in an encyclopedic manner

Think about Genevieve Bujold. She's rather petite (163cm), yet she has insane respect. She has the presence (if you don't know who Genevieve Bujold is, think Yoda - same case there). Respect is not related to height, you have to gain it yourself, and trust me, crying "discrimination, discrimination" will NOT gain you any. Yes, some people may look down to small people, but well, it's not "heightism," it's a part of life. Starter of this wikipedia entry has certainly too much time on his hands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.108.186.216 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think anyone posting here is posting about heightism in hopes of gaining respect. I think the purpose of this article is to discuss a very well documented prejudice. 70.188.226.149 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about a short woman though. It is most often times short men that have the problems. A short woman will be called petite, a short man will be called a shrimp.

For the record, Genevieve Bujold is 5 ft 4 in or 1.63 m, that makes her average.

The evolutionary perspective is very valid, because humans tend to have many reactions hard-wired into them through evolution. The most notable here is the "Oh my, he is tall, better not piss him off!" reaction that often takes place. Similar mechanism are likely a major contributor to why e.g. CEO are of over-average height. Notably, this is a different problem from an explicit belief that tall people (white people, people with blond hair) are superior.88.77.144.69 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that most of you do not understand how natural selection as part of the system of evolution works. Human beings do not have an evolutionary advantage for being taller because we lived in an environment where height was not needed to survive. That is even a broad statement because human beings have lived for nearly 10,000 years in different environments since other groups have developed adaptations to survive in their environments. We had other adaptations that made up for height in certain instances, such as hands and feet for climbing trees. I think that heightism is purely a societal mechanism that has appeared in the past fifty years due to the propogation of the "perfect" human in advertising and most people refuse to admit that being taller is uncommon in most parts of the world. Until we understand how homo sapiens as a species evolved from the missing link, we will never know if tallness is in fact an evolutionary advantage.

Appropriate References?

The last paragraph under "Height discrimination legislation" gives untitled references 33,34, and 35. These references lead to message boards discussing heightism. Although, technically, if someone shares the views discussed in this paragraph on a message board, it is correct that "some people think that it is the employee's job to grow tall..." However, I question the appropriateness of the references. Kludger 20:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

I tagged the second paragraph of the Legislation section for some weasel words - it looks like much of the info came from a discussion forum. While the forum covered a study on height and income, education, and other factors, phrases like "Some think that discriminating short people would motivate short people to grow taller and smarter by having good nutrition and exercise" sounds a lot like either condensing the article or original research. Jjacobsmeyer 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==

Bonaparte example

The changing of Napoleon's height and the deletion of "was slightly above average height for the time he lived." has left that section not making any sense, and indeed that sentence as a fragment. The Napoleon I of France article has a section on this topic, which seems to lean towards the 5'2" view, but perhaps it's a bad example to use if the facts are in doubt. Alai 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

asians and intelligence

maybe we should add a few words about the asians. Those people are short, but they are all smart. what do you think that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.195.85 (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No as that would be a generalisation and so might be considered racist. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short people and evil

Has anybody besides me noticed the tendency for short people to become evil tyrants in fiction? To name a few Frieza, Lord Farquaad, Snowball from Pinky and the Brain and Invader Zim. It appears to have become something of a stereotype in the media as the result of diminutive despots in history such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and of course Napoleon. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Hitler 5'8"? I think that was average height for a German back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.10.111 (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hitler was short, even back then. He's well known for being quite small in stature despite his immense ego. That's another thing actually, short people tend to have huge egos. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was 5'9" which is average height. Osama bin Laden is 6'5" btw. Alex5252 (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, he's thought of as having been short. Also don't you think we should mention the proponent for height-deficient megalomaniacs in fiction? --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That's another thing actually, short people tend to have huge egos." That's a rather bold statement, don't you think? 80.212.231.9 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I myself have a huge ego. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

==Metrication needed==heloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo There are still quite a lot of imperial measurements in this article without corresponding metric units. I would do the necessary conversions but I don't have the time, so if anyone else cares to...Wikischolar1983 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very broad and derogatory comment. It would be like saying that most tyrants throughout history have been white or most tyrants throughout history liked the color red. In the specific cases you cited they have something in common, but in the broad spectrum of tyrants they only equate to a handful that have ruled throughout history. Also, the statement that "short people have huge egos" is derogatory and broad. We could say that anyone who has a distinct advantage over others have an ego OR we could say that anyone who does NOT have a distinct advantage over others have an ego. You could argue both points. As a short man, I find the comments in these sections troubling, and as a human being, it would be great if we could stop delegating and perpetuating derogatory social stereotypes to anyone who is of a different race, creed, sexual orientation, or has a handicap on these Wikipedia forums.

A word or two on sports

The article mentions that many professional sports favour height, which is true, however there are a number of examples where height is a disadvantage - Horse Racing jockeys, and most glaringly the scrum half position in Rugby Union. RU also features a "tall players" position - Second Row/Lock Forward, perhaps RU should get a specific mention for being an arena where height discrimination is used both ways? 82.13.249.178 (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) u hobo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.228.1 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employment

I don't see the following as "heightism" U.S. wrold dominattion

have to be 64 to 77 inches (163 to 196 cm) tall with a sitting height of 34 to 40 inches (86 to 102 cm).

There is a height requirement because that's the size person the cockpit is designed for. Severals years ago a pilot friend of mine tried to join the US Navy as a fighter pilot but was deemed "too tall" to fit into the cockpit.65.43.96.3 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says

Tall abuse vs Short mockery

The person saying that being tall isn't all it's cracked up to be... yeah right. For a woman - specifically in the dating/relationships area, that is understandable. MOST men (not all) want a woman who is shorter, and so see a taller woman as threatening. But a tall man? It's all good. You say it's common to receive hostility from smaller men... well guess what, smaller men receive mockery from taller men, women (both short and tall) and the obese. Clothes don't fit? Oh, what a problem, your life is over. Compare that to not being able to have children, not having as much success in relationships. That is a major life issue.

Taller men are also more likely to be promoted too, something which is also important in what "makes a man a man". While the actual appearance alone is damaging in terms of attractiveness, perceived ability and success for a shorter man, the problem is emphasised when they are paid less, treated less well etc. I'm sure that shorter men can live as long, if not longer (women in general are shorter than men, and they live longer than them, so why not?) than taller men - it is because of societal constraints that prevent a shorter man from living to his full potential - in life, career, health and relationships.

While shorter females fare a lot better than shorter males, this is only in the relationships area - they will find similar cases of bias in the workplace and in wider society, much like a taller woman will automatically gain respect than a shorter one if she walks into the room (hence, high heels). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.120.73 (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this was made towards me? Am I wrong? I take it from your comment that you're not tall, so how would you know being tall is the greatest thing alive? I'm 6'2.5" tall myself and it can be a pain in the butt finding clothes, finding shoes, fitting in vehicles, ducking underneath tree branches when taking a walk, fitting in showers and bathtubs, and having to deal with some guys shorter than you that have a certain degree of insecurity over their height and feel the need to act more aggressive or rude towards around taller guys because they have something to prove to others or themselves.

And before anyone tries to refute the existence of the Short Man Complex, it exists albeit not as much as many people think. Most short guys are very agreeable and easy to get along with, but you do have a few individuals who do overcompensate by acting tough. I've seen it and have had to deal with it a few times. I knew a guy in gradeschool, shortest kid in the class who was always picking fights with people bigger than him and one of my former friends in highschool had the top of his head come up to the center of my my chest and it was very apparent he had a certain intimidation by guys bigger than him and I could see it in his eyes that my height played a little bit of a factor in him treating me the way he did. I also had a gym teacher in gradeschool who was short, but pushed her weight around towards her students as a bit of a bully, me included who were smaller than her because she was short herself and openly had a little bit of an inferiority problem. Believe me, the short person's complex is existant and it can make a tall person like me a little uncomfortable.

Guys do indeed overcompensate for what they perceive as being insufficiencies in themselves i.e. stereotypes that men who buy bigger and bigger guns... And numerous times when I see a Ford or Chevy pick up truck monstrous in size a lot of times it's a short man driving it. Just an observation.

It's a natural human instinct IMO for people as a basest animal instinct to look towards progressively taller individuals as on different ends of the spectrum the greater protectors or greater predators/threats. Some people I've noticed seem to be a little more tense around taller people and little kids I've noticed have looked at me and my father, who's 6'5", with kind of scared looks. It sort of sucks to have that happen and I wouldn't doubt my height makes a difference in that. I mean as a way to help further paint this point using a little bit of the inverse, ever watch cable TV? The US Cable Channel TLC has a show called "Little People, Big World" about a family consistent of three dwarfs and the mother Amy Roloff herself works part time as a preschool teacher. They shown on one episode an excerpt of her teaching with kids running around, her trying to calm them down for the next lesson and she says that because she's about their size they don't feel the need to listen to her or something to that effect. It indeed proves that bigger size commands respect, but think about it like this. It also says those kids don't feel as much reason to be scared or intimidated by her since they size her up to be similar to themselves. So going back to being tall how do you think some tall people might feel knowing there are people kind of intimidated or scared of them? It doesn't always feel good, let me tell you that much.

Plus and not really related to heightism but biological differences. Increased height can provide increased strain on your body and decreased lifespan! Fact!

All these things I have described is motivated by either a gravitation to the majority closer to average height and/or a feeling of intimidating feeling of people like me, which is prejudice and discrimination to a certain extent and thus is heightism. ANYONE on either end off of average height might have to deal with it. Grant it, I'll give you that short people have to deal with it more, but still. This article despite tall people being mentioned with tall women's lack of romantic success is still rather biased. The clear lack of focus here and elsewhere just helps lead to stereotypes about us. I was fighting with a short guy on another website making blanket statements about tall guys literally saying towards me something to the effect of "You tall guys have all the success in romance and careers and etc." directing it in anger towards me when he didn't even bother to take into account other factors that can counter my height. Isn't that a heightist assumption?

Honestly, I'm going to try to be respectful about this as I can. It's not wrong to say that short people get a lot of garbage from others because they do and I know because at a lot of points I myself have had to deal with people doing that to me when I was smaller. I won't lie that it happens. But for you to get sarcastic and say "The person saying that being tall isn't all it's cracked up to be... yeah right." seems to me to be a sarcastic statement wrapped up in a semantical absolute. By me saying, as I was implying, that it isn't all it's cracked up to be that it isn't all advantages, taking into account we do, then you going "..." and then "yeah right" is a bit rude, the lack of understanding of what some tall people have to go through, and not mention to mention what you said in combination with that shows looking at it a little more in black and white, instead of looking more towards another side of it (you did mention about tall women I'll give you). The grass is not exactly always greener on the other side of the rainbow. No matter who you are, you get stuck dealing with some garbage.

I'll try to find some sources about how tall people get stuck if any of you are willing to accept it. I'll do it right now in fact! :) Vgamer101 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept some sources of how tall people get stuck. So You can go ahead and post them now (after almost 8 years You still haven`t done that). OK let´s assume that there is a “Short Man Complex”, but those (and all other) short people don’t get discriminated because there is a “Short Man Complex” but because they are short. You go back again telling how “it can be a pain in the butt finding clothes…” etc., that’s peanuts – nothing at all - when compared to not being able to marry or get a job ever. Or would You yourself exchange a wife and a job against a comfortable bathtub and walks in a park? Those things are not about feeling good or not, but the whole point of living at all… And short people can have trouble finding fitting clothes as well. “Increased height can provide increased strain on your body and decreased lifespan…” may be a fact, and “can” provide…etc., but here is another fact with a quote : “The authors conducted a record linkage study of the birth, conscription, mortality, family, and census register data of 1,299,177 Swedish men followed from age 18 to a maximum of age 49. […] In fully adjusted models, a 5-cm increase in height was associated with a 9% decrease in suicide risk." [2], how about that decreased lifespan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.227.110.117 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification by sex on the page please?

I was reading this page, and noticed that there is no section that specifically refers to women & height, except in the "Dating & Marriage" section. I'm confused as to whether the statistics cited in the article (especially in the politics & business sections) apply to both males & females, or to just males. Obviously there's a whole different bias against women in these fields, but I'm confused as to whether tall women have an advantage in business and politics, or if it's just tall men who have this advantage. It would also be worth noting, in general, if tall women have a disadvantage or advantage in life, especially compared to short men/tall men. The article seems to only discuss tall/short men, but does not make it implicitly clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.196.254.35 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Majd Kakish"

The bullying section seemed to be full of stuff about a Majd Kakish person. This doesn't seem to add much and is rather unreferenced. I've removed it, because it doesn't really add much to the article. Compoundinterestisboring (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the french word for heightism

Hi, the french word for heightism is mesurisme, the problem is the french wiki community doesn't want recognize this kind of discrimination, so the french paper about heightism is proposed to be suppressed. Could you help to keep this paper on french wikipedia. Thanks Proximo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.10.17 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved to Height discrimination, Class discrimination, and Discrimination based on skin colour, per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heightism (Sociology) → Heightism — Suggest removing disambiguation tag from unambiguous article title. Per WP:PRECISION, additional precision isn't necessary to distinguish this article from other topics. Muchness (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Classism (Sociology) → Classism
Colorism (Sociology) → Colorism

Survey

Oppose use instead height discrimination , class discrimination , discrimination based on skin colour , since the current terms are less used that the compound terms (especially "colorism") 65.94.232.153 (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option to be considered, but meanwhile I don't think there's any controversy about the original proposal (particularly since "Sociology" is inappropriately capitalized), so speedy move.--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see any reason to do a separate move request. If Height discrimination is better than Heightism, then I'm not inclined to close this discussion moving the page to Heightism. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to "discrimination" titles; the "ism" titles are, I think, neologisms. Powers ^T 20:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All right, support that option too.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Orlady (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination based on skin color → Prejudice and discrimination based on skin color — Discrimination is prejudicial treament. ________ism includes not only discrimination but prejudiced beleifs. By saying _____ discrimination instead of _________ism we are mislabeling it as always being action and not a system of beliefs. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class discrimination → Classism — Classism is more common than the provided compound term.
Height discrimination → Heightism , Prejudice and discrimination based on height or alternative name

NoteI am open to other article titles which address that this can refer to both prejudice and discrimination. I understand the concern about neologisms however, the articles title must remain accurate.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There was clear consensus for this move; let it lie for a while. Powers ^T 15:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close this was just discussed last month. WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:JARGON and WP:COMMONNAME also rejects the proposed titles. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Once again you are ignoring the difference between prejudice and discrimination. If you look at racism sexism or ageism for example it will say the belief that one race sex age is superior to another as well as discrimination. Anyone with a basic knowledge of sociology knows the difference between prejudice and discrimination. If you wish to avoid neologisms that is fine however, you must come up with a title that describes its topic accurately including both prejudice and discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment avoiding neologisms means that your proposed titles are rejected, so this move should be closed, since you didn't offer non-neologistic names. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposal is definitely a neologism. If the name needs to include prejudice why wasn't "Prejudice and discrimination based on skin color" proposed? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NoteOn WP:COMMONNAME It states to do a search engine method. I used google and Classism actually came up with more results than Class discrimination in quotes. Although the other two were less. Classism includes both prejudice and discrimination. On the others however, Discrimination based on Skin Color and Height Discrimination had more results. Just using your own methods. Remember this is not about who has the most support this is about who can back up their facts best with wikipedia guidelines. The only one I see who attempted this is 64.299.100.61. And as stated before this is not about neologisms if you want to come up with a new name much like Good Olfactory did then go ahead. Thats why I put up alternative names-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Height discrimination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 10:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short person support

Here is a good source, with info to possibly be transcluded into this article, on male heightism: http://www.shortsupport.org/News/0106.html 66.243.215.2 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

metric system

1.80 m is a reference for male height, but it's only 5 ft 11. This has a big impact on height perception. --2.245.118.119 (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?

Some of the sections are possibly irrelevant because I'm not sure they constitute discrimination (which is what the article is supposed to discuss)). For example, it is noted that shorter men are generally considered less attractive. But is this discrimination? I mean attractiveness is about personal preference so I don't think it could really constitute discrimination (without also concluding, for example, that all heterosexuals are homophobic and all homosexuals are heterophobic). It also comes across as a bit creepy in some ways since it sort of suggests, to me anyway, that "short men aren't getting as much sex as they deserve". The earnings section is also unclear given that the reasons for taller men's greater success may be down to other factors (greater social skills have been suggested) or being able to project a more powerful image (which isn't really discrimination since other people aren't obliged to view you in a certain way), though the article does note this in a way.

Basically I'm not sure if some of the things included here really constitute discrimination or prejudice in the way the terms are generally used. One could argue that the information is useful for listing disparities that seem to be related to height and that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy means readers can conclude for themselves whether or not these things constitute discrimination/prejudice. However I'm still not sure they would meet the criteria for relevance (the article itself notes that taller men may do better in certain jobs that require physical height and that this may indeed be down to physical height being relevant to job performance, which thus wouldn't constitute height discrimination and thus be irrelevant to the purpose of the article), so they might still need to be removed. Some parts still are however (for example the part about people being denied a job because they were too short).

So basically is all the information on the present version of the article relevant?Sdio7 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexuals don't gain advantage over homosexuals in the dating game because of their heterosexuality (since their dating pool in theory would be limited to other heterosexuals and couldn't be expanded at cost of homosexual group), and the other way around. "Creepy" is a term for something that causes an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease. - Wikipedia - Your feeling of "creep" isn't an objective factor which could be used to surpress facts. The article itself doesn't mention anywhere that short men (or any other man) deserve anything just because they exist. It simply states the relation in reproductive sucess (or rather the implication of it) for both groups.

The greater social skills also boil down to mans height in the end.(Unless you are willing to state(and prove) that short men are actually less intelligent). Thats because they would be considered more "sociable" just because of their tallness and have more opportunities to hone those skills.

Other people aren't obliged to perceive the image of short men as more powerful, so they fulfill their freedom and discriminate shorter men. (The article isn't about whether it is legally or morally acceptable but about the existance of such discrimination)

The facts stated in article do constitute a clear cut pattern for success of short men. Determined by nothing else but their low height.

Article doesn't say that tall men "do better" in certain jobs. It says "Some jobs do require or at least favor tall people" which in itself doesn't mean that they perform better, and even if they do, it doesn't have to be because of their superior attributes, but rather because the life of the shorter person has been and may be tougher.

So, yes, the information You mentioned is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.3.79.215 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. However, I'm still not convinced about everything - discrimination generally means treating people unjustly because of group membership (so not hiring a black guy even if he's competent is discrimination but not hiring him because he's incompetent isn't discrimination). The bit about perceiving short men as not powerful was mentioned because that wouldn't constitute discrimination factually (morality is irrelevant, as you observe) since to be so factually would mean they were being denied a perception of power because of their height when they should be regarded as such, even though that's a personal decision and height would be an attribute used to evaluate perception of power. Attraction would also fall into this (otherwise it would indicate short men should be viewed as attractive and not doing so is using group membership rather than attributes, which makes no sense). Essentially if discrimination is about unjust treatment due to group membership, which is a factual claim, then I'm not sure if it's relevant, since shorter men having less dating success can't be blamed on group membership but rather because they are viewed as less attractive as height is considered an attribute for attraction. Even the social skills part could be questioned - are they actually considered more sociable because of their "tallness" or is it because they are able to present themselves as such (for example, being more confident thanks to greater physical presence). Further links would be needed.

The point about earnings was that it didn't establish a clear link between height and earnings. It doesn't prove that this was down to discrimination, merely that there is a wage difference. I would have thought it would be better to show that this was down to unjust treatment of shorter people rather than demonstrating there's a gap and not explain why. It's like gender and crime - men are vastly overrepresented in prisons because men commit the vast majority of crime, rather than due to discrimination (though there may be a very small effect), so listing that under gender discrimination wouldn't make much sense aside from noting the possible small effect. I'd be fine with keeping it if it explained that this difference was caused by short people being discriminated against because of their membership of the category of short people, as opposed to individual attributes. Or another example is smarter people earning more - denied higher earnings because of their group membership or denied earnings because of their attributes (or lack thereof)? I'd say it's the latter, so lower earnings for less intelligent people couldn't in and of itself be used as evidence of discrimination - a further link would be required.

Basically I'm saying that the cited information needs to show that people are denied things based on group membership as opposed to individual attributes, which is what discrimination is about and I'm not sure the article does that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdio7 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Height discrimination. 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:

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) 02:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not impartial

As a particularly tall individual, I feel this article is written in a manner which is not impartial, focusing on discrimination against short individuals while completely ignoring discrimination against tall people.ShadowLeopardBeetleweightGuy (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an article on discrimination against tall individuals would also be appropriate. Stevenschulman (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if they stop complaining and publish links and information about the alleged discrimination against tall people and the "difficulties" they suffer every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiankShy16 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an undue weight advocacy by ShadowLeopardBeetleweightGuy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User named ContributeToTheWiki is removing appropriate changes to this article

The user named ContributeToTheWiki [3] is aggressively reverting appropriate changes to this article. They already have a non-zero vandalism rating on their user page, and I think they need to be prevented from reverting any more changes to this article, in favor of advancing it in the directions pointed out in the disclaimer at the article's top.

The disclaimers specifically mention that the article itself has heightist overtones, ironically, and neutralizing those overtones is a legitimate project. To the effect of delegitimizing heightism in an article about how heightism is truly an illegitimate form of discrimination. As long as this user is allowed to revoke appropriate changes in that direction at will, this article's progress in the right direction will be dogged.

The edits in question were not reflected on the abuse log page, which indicates that this is a result of this users personal efforts, not those of Wikipedia. [4]

If anyone else has had their own appropriate edits reverted by this user, please reply to this topic, to help ensure this article is allowed to progress without their interference. There are PLENTY of people working on this, it's not like ContributeToTheWiki is some essential barrier to problems. 2603:7081:400:9070:1870:F310:5A49:B638 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]