On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:29:06 -0700, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's not like we don't have lots of other arbitrary criteria for inclusion already, both in lists and in article retention. But in this case as long as the list's criteria can be evaluated reasonably objectively I see nothing inherently wrong with it.
OK, so try this:
* Average height increases over time, so the criterion excludes people who were notable for their height in their time (e.g. Edward I of England).
* Average height varies with over 10" difference between the average height of the tallest nation (Netherlands) and the shortest (I think that's Vietnam, but can't remember offhand).
* The tallest true pygmy would be notable as such while still remaining well below the criterion.
* There is a special "fudge rule" to stop it being a list of basketball players, which is a really, really bad sign.
* Heights of circus giants and historical figures are not necessarily (!) accurate.
* Acromegaly and giantism produce extremes of height which exceed in many cases the effects of normal variation (see Robert Wadlow)
* A notably tall ballet dancer would be well under the limit (there are ballerinas who are under the 6ft mark but still remarkably tall /for ballerinas/ - same would apply to male dancers).
So: the list is completely arbitrary in that it excludes many who are notable for their height while including many who are just - well, tall.
Guy (JzG)