Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 16:37:56 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Yes, it is. Check out the stats on average height by country. There is a 10" difference between the lowest and the highest
The list is about tall men. Excluding short men from it hardly seems like bias. It's like complaining that a list of the world's tallest trees doesn't have any representatives from Saudi Arabia on it; it's not bias because Saudia Arabia simply doesn't have any really tall trees in it (I'm assuming for purposes of argument, anyway).
No, you miss the point. A notably tall Arabian tree would be much shorter than a notably tall Dutch tree, but still notably tall for an Arabian tree.
I think we must both be missing each other's points, then. The list that you're referring to, the [[List of tall men]], doesn't have "tall compared to the local people around them" as a criterion. It just has a single numeric threshold. If you want to create an additional list of _relatively_ tall men then I don't see a problem with that, but in the meantime the existing list has nothing to do with it. To me this seems like going to a shoe store and complaining to the manager because they don't sell any good food there.
We seem to be going around in circles so we may have to agree to disagree, which is fine IMO. Just go ahead and start building your list of "relatively tall" people and if that works out turn [[List of tall men]] into a disambiguation page linking both to the existing list and your new one. Everyone gets their preferred presentation that way.