On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:29:06 -0700, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG