The tallest true pygmy belongs on that list, see below for a comment on opera.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Guy Chapman aka JzG [mailto:guy.chapman@spamcop.net]
>Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 05:45 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Frustrated
>
>I am very frustrated.
>
>We have on Wikipedia a list with the following selection criteria:
>
>-----------------
>
>This is a list of notable tall men, starting at 198 cm (6 ft 6 in). In
>several cases these men were among the tallest in their profession,
>their province, or nation.
>
>The concept of "what is tall" can vary by average height of any given
>population. In the United States the highest percentile of height
>given by the FAA is the 99th percentile, which is 75.2 inches or
>approximately 191 centimetres.[1] Pediatricians place tall stature at
>2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean for age and gender.[2][3]
>In adult males this begins at around 192 cm. An additional 6 cm is
>added to this second figure due to height variation and to assure that
>comparative tallness is a part of the individuals notability or
>significance.
>
>Note: Names placed in this list must have their height be a part of
>their fame or significance. As basketball players are noted as having
>above average height this means they will need to be taller than the
>cut-off point in order to be notable as tall. Exceptions to this is
>members of the Philippine Basketball Association, as heights above 213
>cm are essentially unheard of in their league, and early twentieth
>century basketball players as they lived in an era where player height
>was much smaller.
>
>-----------------
>
>Tall is defined by agreement of editors, not by any externally
>verifiable definition. After five or six deletion debates, no
>consensus third-party definition of tall has been produced. Average
>height is increasing over time so the list naturally favours
>contemporary figures. Average height varies by country, so this list
>favours Western (and especially Dutch) figures. Average height varies
>by ethnicity, so this list works against Vietnamese and Japanese, to
>name but two. We don't have a place in here for Edward I
>("Longshanks"), whose height is an integral part of his notability,
>because he's below the arbitrary criterion. The height has changed
>from 6'3" to 6'7" and up and down, based primarily on the size of the
>resulting list, not any objective definition of tall. We have to take
>special measures (i.e. additional arbitrary criteria) to stop it
>simply being a list of basketball players, which it more or less
>became.
>
>To me this list exemplifies all that is worst about the worst
>Wikipedia lists. The definition of tall is original research, the
>selection of tall and men is indiscriminate anyway, the list has no
>evident utility, is systemically biased in numerous ways. We might as
>well have [[List of stuff I like]] and leave it at that.
>
>Compare with another list:
>
>-----------------
>
>This list provides a guide to the most important opera composers, as
>determined by their presence on a majority of compiled lists of
>significant opera composers. (See the "Lists Consulted" section for
>full details.) The composers run from Jacopo Peri, who wrote the first
>ever opera in late 16th century Italy, to John Adams, one of the
>leading figures in the contemporary operatic world. The brief
>accompanying notes offer an explanation as to why each composer has
>been considered major. Also included is a section about major women
>opera composers, compiled from the same lists. For an introduction to
>operatic history, see Opera. The organisation of the list is by
>birthdate.
>
>-----------------
>
>Here we have a list explicitly based on external criteria. The list
>has objective validity, and evident utility in identifying the most
>significant composers in a particular genre. Sadly we also have the
>tacked-on section of "major women opera composers", of whom there are,
>according to the sources, none at all, which was added in order to
>appease a soapboxing editor who was absolutely determined to add a
>composer whose work is published by his company. It was asserted that
>the lack of women was "systemic bias". No, it's more that opera is
>ludicrously expensive to produce, and for most of its history women
>composers were vanishingly rare anyway.
>
>Sadly, although we managed to delete the list of tall me once, that
>was sent back to AfD and there is no consensus to delete it. No
>consensus in this case means that there is no clear majority of !votes
>- policy and guidelines (which reflect a much wider consensus) are
>that we do not have original research, and there is no credible
>rebuttal of the assertion that the list of tall men is based on just
>that.
>
>OK, now I'll get off my soapbox.
>
>Guy (JzG)
The opera case was a hard fought arbitration case, mostly over the absence of women on the list. Sources were demanded and provided. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau
Fred