Talk:Dwarfism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeDwarfism was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 2, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
April 15, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Safety of HGH?[edit]

"but HGH injections may adversely affect the cardiac muscles, making them too large or thick to properly function, causing death through cardiac failure."


I don't think this is proven, in fact some studies have indicated just the opposite. I linked it to the "growth hormone treatment" article.


Eur J Endocrinol. 2009 Nov;161 Suppl 1:S65-74. Epub 2009 Aug 14. Safety aspects of GH replacement.

Svensson J, Bengtsson BA.

Department of Endocrinology, Research Centre for Endocrinology and Metabolism, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden. johan.svensson@medic.gu.se <johan.svensson@medic.gu.se>

In adults, GH replacement therapy will often be maintained for decades. Owing to the long duration of GH replacement in many adults, it is essential to establish the long-term safety aspects of the treatment. In this review, studies that have investigated the safety profile of long-term GH replacement will be reviewed with an emphasis on studies based on data from the Pfizer International Metabolic Database (KIMS). These studies show that long-term GH replacement in adults is safe and that long-term GH replacement may even improve cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in GH-deficient adults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.116.211 (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Gary Coleman?[edit]

I think Gary Coleman should be removed from this list, he was born with a congenital kidney disease causing nephritis (an autoimmune destruction of the kidney), which halted his growth at an early age. He does not have Dwarfism. If you knew a good midget. Danrduggan

The Little People of America (LPA) defines dwarfism as a medical or genetic condition that usually results in an adult height of 4'10" (147 cm) or shorter. --86.135.126.195 (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what? They use the term wrong then. Why should this article conform to some group's misuse of a term rather than the actual definitions?76.226.119.195 (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, LPA uses the term correctly as defined by most medical experts. I'm not sure where you are getting your information. Gary Coleman has medical condition which causes dwarfism, and although he may not self-identify as such, there are people in LPA with the same condition. Also, your "if you knew a good midget" comment is patently offensive.—128.193.251.136 (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC) William Bradford, LPA Sr. VP[reply]
Also, your "if you knew a good midget" comment is patently offensive.
Says who, and since when? The Thought Police? It certainly wouldn't have been considered offensive when I was a child. A perfect example of Ingsoc. —QuicksilverT @ 13:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

I think we need a few more images detailing a few different forms of dwarfism, the only image is a Velaquez portrait Angryafghan 11:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree I came here to educate my younger sister about the diferences and everyone shows the same pictures. I want people to know and understand that there is many different kinds of forms of dwarfism. Not all people diagnosed with it look the same. Pictures should be added. -Unsigned
The picture of Gimli should be removed from the main page. This is a mythical character (in addition to being a CGI shrunk image of an average sized actor). Dwarves, as invented by Tolkein, is not the same as dwarfs, the real medical condition. Tslug 00:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill Bradford[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

"Many of the conditions are associated with disordered function of other organs, such as brain or liver (although this is rare). These problems can be more disabling than the abnormal bone growth."

I don't know. The preceding line is a little contradictory. Why not replace "many" with "some", so it sounds better? I don't know anything about midgets, but I don't think this really makes any sense. -Unsigned

I can't say whether that's true, but it isn't contradictory. There's a clear difference between the number of conditions and their prevalence.

I want to add a contradiction that I've seen: "Dwarfism is a medical disorder ... If dwarfism is caused by a medical disorder, the person is referred to by the underlying diagnosed disorder."

While indeed the 4'10" marker is what's used out there, to describe dwarfism, it's arbitrary, and somewhat absurd to continue its use. It's like using skin tone to decide whether someone qualifies as black white or yellow. Anyway... apart from changing its use... The current text seems somewhat contradictory. Because what we're saying here is that, it's a medical disorder, but it's not necessarily a medical disorder. There is in fact, no medical disorder to speak of, based solely on a height of 4'10". It's a classification, sure, and a quantifiable one at that. But I think that disorder is a poor term, as, honestly, is the 4'10" marker. 4'10" signifies a greater likelihood of one of a myriad of medical disorders which affect developmental growth. Only a likelihood, and for many "medical disorders", I believe that "disorder" is a terrible term to use. Even abnormality is a bit sticky. I doubt that 4'10" is all that abnormal in many countries. Further, this doesn't take into account sexual dimorphism. Why is the 4'10" not adjusted for sexual dimorphism?

I suppose I'm making two arguments, one, just as we are doing with the concept of [neurodiversity], we should be more sensitive to our ethnocentric values of what "normal" humans are. While this article has to balance current medical terminology, with popular connotations, "disorder" being a good example, and I appreciate that, I think we ought to take another look at what's being said here, and maybe re-work some of our wording. As mentioned, when someone has a medical disorder, that's what they're referred to by. And for good reason, it can be quantified, and identified.

But what about someone who is 4'9, or 4'10, or 4'11". There is no reason to separate them out of the category of normalcy, and put them into a race of dwarves.

Downchuck (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limb lengthening[edit]

I've actually had my limbs lengthened. I got 11" in my legs and 4" in my arms. I just made some edits. Please don't link to the shortsupport page, it talks about limb lengthening for consitutional short stature and condemns it (rightly so). However, people may get confused and think he is condemning people like me with clinical short stature. What's with hte popularity in china comment? What kind of neurosurgical operations would a midget need? I've never heard of that. Oh and for emphasis, it's LIMB lengthening not LEG lengthening. They lengthen your arms and legs. Midgets like me have short legs and arms. Although we have a big head, ass and trunk to compensate. -Nathan J. Yoder 06:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. -Unsigned
  1. I agree, limb lengthening is the more commonly used term, though some people just have their legs done.
  2. The link to shortsupport is a compendium of topics and aids for a variety of types of shortness with many good links. It was the best I found when I went looking. Why would you delete it just because it editorializes in a way you partially agree with? I hope you don't have a problem with my replacing it. If you want to add a critical comment to the citation, that might be a good compromise.
  3. In several forms of chrondrodystrophy, the spinal canal is too narrow, or the junction at the base of the skull is misshapen in a way that can cause problems. Neurosurgeons correct these problems as often or more often than orthopedists.
  4. If you feel inspired, we could use an article on limb lengthening.
Thanks for your contributions. Alteripse 15:48, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  1. I haven't met a midget that had their legs, but not arms done. The arms are so much easier than the legs and you are much more functional during the procedure that cost would be the only reason not to get it done. However, it is true that some people of constitutional short stature and with different sized limbs would just get the legs done.
  2. Short support is a good website. My problem was that it was critical of limb lengthening for people of constitutional short stature. Constitutional short stature means people who are short, like 5' tall, but they don't have a clinical short stature like Achondroplasia which causes people to be around 4'. For people 5' the operation is ridiculous, but not for those with clinical short stature. I e-mailed the site owner a while back and he agreed with me that it's good for clinical short stature, but he wanted to keep up the warning to deter people of constitutional short stature form doing it. My concern is that people would confuse his critcism of lengthening for those of constitutional short stature with those of clinical short stature. Short support can be linked to the main page, but if you're going to link to the lengthening section I agree that a clarification should be added.
  3. The China stat seemed very odd to me. My surgeon is one of the (if not THE) most prominent limb lengthening surgeon in the world. People come from all around the world to see him.
  4. I may do a limb lengthening article. It would also cover corrective procedures involved with the same devices, it's not jsut for dwarves.
Nathan J. Yoder 17:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)ang gandah ni bea balisi

Verne paragraph[edit]

I added a short paragraph on Verne Troyer, basically because he's currently one of the most famous little people in the world. I don't mean any offense by having him the only little person mentioned by name in the article (not counting any of the authors who may be short statured). I just didn't want to expand this into a general section on / list of little actors (not right now, anyway). If this bothers you, please add more info about other famous little people. - dcljr 08:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC) ang gandah ni ana bea balisi noh siyah ngah palah itoh yung katabih niyah sa upuan ?gustoh niyo bang malaman?babae akoh? nagbebeggins yung name koh sa J may ang surname koh naman ay L?pagpinagsama moh JL bakah kilala nyo na akoh!!!!!!!

Dick Levy[edit]

Can anyone determine if Dick Levy has dwarfism? He's short, but I didn't find any Internet references to his being a little person. func(talk) 20:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's part of a smear campaign. See User:Kmccoy/Delfino. kmccoy (talk) 05:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Height cut-offs[edit]

Is there any agreed-upon set of heights below which people would be considered Little People, as opposed to just short? Whether there is or isn't, I think it should be mentioned in the article. What cut-off should we use for the list of famous people? Misterwindupbird 01:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is. The LPA (Little People of America) defines an LP as a person standing 4'10" or shorter. Wandering Star 17:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this definition considered universal? Do physicians outside the US accept it? I mean, it strikes me as really weird, because different ethnic groups have different average heights (not to mention men are usually taller than women - so how can the same standard apply to all?). While a Scandinavian man standing 4'10' may be perceived as considerably shorter than average, the same height in other ethnic groups wouldn't be that unusual. I come myself from an ethnic minority in which short height is a locally renown trademark (140-160cm), so it would be interesting to know if this standard is universal, i.e. intended to apply to all human beings, or if instead a different height standard applies to each ethnic group based on their average height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.187.214 (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some comments under the Contradiction section. I'm quite certain there is no "universal standard", though yes, there are standards, and 4'10" is a particular standard used within the US. There is no standard, because height is a relatively arbitrary measurement of normal human-ness. We do not for instance, measure brain sizes of people, and group them into categories. Now there are diseases and disorders, and maladies related to height, related to brain size, and so on, and we identify these. But alone, height is about as quantifiable a universal as is race. I've spoken with someone who is 4'11", with no disorder, and recognizes that the dwarfism gradient connotes that their height is somehow a disorder. Sure, they are an inch above the "disorder", but it still stings. I'd imagine the LPA would not discriminate against a person who is 4'11", they would not be excluded from the group, as an Average Person. Gigantism is a better used term than Dwarfism. And going back to your question -- the 4'10" is most certainly a socio-cultural classification, just as race is a social construct. And so the title of "dwarf" varies amongst societies. I hope that modern medical professionals in the U.S. use the term Dwarfism as a category for medical ailments, and only rarely misapply the 4'10" standard to healthy people. Downchuck (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.C. Terminology[edit]

I expanded the stub quickly and it would benefit from others' additions or refinements. If someone prefers to separate this into two articles, go ahead.

My memory nags me that I have missed some books and movies--- please add. However, I purposely avoided listing movies or books which feature a single dwarf buffoon or villain and tried to list those which someone might actually read or watch especially for their treatment of this topic: (1) dwarfism itself is a major theme of the work, realistically or not, or (2) many of the actors display various forms of dwarfism. If you feel compelled to list movies or tv shows with one humorous or villainous dwarf as a one-dimensional accessory character, please add a new paragraph and start a separate list.

Also, I noted that there is already a lovingly edited article on dwarves as a "race" in western fantasy games, movies, and books. Let's continue to keep the articles distinct. Alteripse 15:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting just to initiate discussion. See the link provided with an earlier version of this page. It certainly looks as though people with the condition or people strongly identifying with and supportive of people with the condition are using the term. Unless you can give me a stronger argument, how about if we compromise and hedge it?

Yes, they do use it, but there are a few who are offended by the term 'dwarf.' In those cases the only PC term is 'little person' or just LP. Those people who are offended are of the easily offended variety and can be safely ignored. I even heard there was something being done to replace 'little person' *g*. Just thought you might want to hear from an actual midget-err I mean dwarf--shit I mean little person---FUCK I mean vertically challenged. ;-P Nathan J. Yoder 22:44, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think that Little People / Person is the most common term used to describe this condition, so why is the article under dwarfism? To me, dwarfism should be saved for the part about non-people, but the information on little people should be moved to an article called Little person --Quasipalm 29 June 2005 03:54 (UTC)
Bad idea for several reasons. First, remember that we want to title the articles with the most likely sought term. Our primary purpose is to write an encyclopedia, not enforce political correctness. Second, the term dwarf is hundreds of years old; the euphemism "little person" perhaps 3 decades and mainly in North America. Third, even beyond that I would strenuously object to any article that prefers to reserve a term for fantasy gaming which applies to a real world subject; many people think we are way out of balance already in that direction. Fourth, don't confuse a term for the condition with calling a person a name. There is nothing shameful about the term as a collective term for bone dysplasias even if we might not describe a particular person as "a dwarf." alteripse 29 June 2005 06:51 (UTC)

Just an observation from someone with no connection to the subject, but to me "little person" sounds far more demeaning than any of the alternatives. PeteVerdon

Agreed. Anyone affected with this condition care to weigh in on the matter?

I am a person with dwarfism, and I am also the vice president of LPA (Little People of America). Little people, or people with dwarfism is the commonly accepted term within our organization. For those who do not like the term "little people" LP is often substituted for the entire word. Dwarfs, or dwarfism is the accepted medical term for people with a skeletal dysplasia that causes short stature. Tslug 00:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill Bradford[reply]

I've already voiced it, but I can voice it again. "Dwarf" as a term seems to be the one in most common usage and while offensive to some, is generally seen as benign. Little person actually does seem more offensive to me personally, which is why I think many just say "LP" instead. I think they should just stick with dwarf since it's so well recognized. Nathan J. Yoder 16:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel very uncomfortable saying "little person", not only because it sounds demeaning, but because in my personal lexicon, "the little people" are faeries and leprechauns and such, so I have to stifle a giggle whenever it comes up. Is it okay to say "small person"? 216.75.170.81 20:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could swear I've mentioned this before, but a quick scan doesn't show anything familiar. In my experience, young dwarfs (i.e., up to about the mid twenties or maybe early thirties) prefer the term dwarf (full disclosure: I fall into this category, and dwarf is my preferred term), and some feel that LP and Little Person are overly PC (compare "person with a visual impairment" or "person of African descent"). Short statured is acceptable, but overly clinical. Not sure what the elder population feels on the issue. Midget, though, is right out. Anyway, note that this is restricted to the US; in the UK, I believe the preferred term is "restricted growth"; Little Person is ridiculed as "typical American patronization", and I'm not sure what the status of "dwarf" is --User:Gordknot
Yeah little people is definitely a US term, when I first heard it I found it hilarious (although this was in the context of the awesome tv show 'Man vs Beast USA' where 49 'little people' competed with an elephant to tow an aeroplane). I always thought dwarf and midget were acceptable if used correctly. I guess midget is more common as an insult for a normal short person. Also heard a rival theory that dwarfs are midgets with beards.137.138.46.155 09:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Little people" sounds ridiculously superior, patronising and condescending to me. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 09:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in med school and they told us to look up the "different types of dwarfism". naturally, I came straight to this page. So, even if it is out of vogue with the "little people", it is still one of the medical terms that is applied, as seen in the terms "thyroid dwarf" and "pituitary dwarf". Granted that this is only about the third article I have looked at, and none seems to highlight these two types since it is treatable so by the time they're fully grown they aren't as short anymore.

And there are a lot of medical terms that are deemed offensive, but actually is the precise term for a given condition. I'm still too uneducated to decide...maybe I will repost in about three weeks. - Freida

A clear situation where UK and US usage differs. Little person sound hopelessly patronising to UK ears, yet I can appreciate it is used with pride in the USA. Person of restricted growth is generally seen as an over-correction in the UK. Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Pope[edit]

Is he really a dwarf? From the Pope page here a Wikipedia: "From early childhood he suffered numerous health problems, including Pott's disease (a form of tuberculosis affecting the spine) which deformed his body and stunted his growth. He never grew beyond 1.37m (4ft 6in)." I'm not sure that constitutes dwarfism, but I don't know. Can anyone resolve this? --Qwayfe 05:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, average height during Pope's lifetime would've been notably lower than it is today. If I think about it again, I'll dig up statistics. Kfor 03:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com says that dwarfs range in height from 2 to 4 ft (5.08–10.16 cm). That's not set in stone, so he might or might not have been a true dwarf. I don't think we know enough. 67.71.143.190 16:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answers.com has much erroneous medical information, and you have just provided us with an example. alteripse 02:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 to 4 ft is not equivalent to 5.08 to 10.16 cm. It's 60.96 to 121.92 cm. Littleghostboo[ talk ] 09:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition?[edit]

John Irving's book Son of the Circus also has characters who are dwarves. Would someone like to add it to the list of literary works? Also, back in the 1980s (1986), a television show came out with a dwarf in the starring role. David Rappaport played Simon McKay, The Wizard, in the (NBC?) show The Wizard. Rappaport had achondroplasia and stood 3'11. He also later appeared on L.A. Law, and there was a discussion about a spinoff series for his character. Arouette 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Memoirs of a Gnostic Dwarf by David Madsen. Not the most gentle book, but it is extremely well written. I'd write an article on Madsen and another on his book, but I'm sick of the beardos and assburgers set deleting articles about authors (and books and historical personages etc) as "not notable enough" just because they've never heard of anything that's outside their one-note interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.225.132 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial diagnosis[edit]

When are the symptoms of dwarfism usually initially found? Anyone? -Ravedave 05:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some forms of dwarfism are recognizable at birth. Some are not recognized until the shortness becomes obvious in childhood. alteripse 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Achondroplasia dwarfism and when my mother was pregnant with me, she was telling me that the doctor kept saying that I had a large head. The comment never sank in, but when I was born the nurse there who had been a friend of the family for years said that I would be a dwarf. For some reason my parents did not pick up on anything and I think I was diagnosed at 6 months old. Hope this helps. Fantasyleaguer (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

A lot of people have been putting in their own personal tidbits that have nothing to do with the article. I suggest this page be closed off to anonymous edits. -Unsigned

Ya well I don't! Wikipedia doesnt work that way. If you support the "good guys" around here rather than the vandals, make yourself an account, put the article on your watchlist, and spend the 5 seconds it takes to revert vandalism when it occurs. But thanks for your concern. alteripse 02:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Wikipedia DOES in fact work that way, since it is in fact possible to do.
WRONG! Wikipaedia DOESN'T work that way (i.e. control freakery of articles), since it is in fact possible to do (i.e. edit pseudanonymously).
It's true though, the article is full of random unsourced "opinion" pieces... like this:
"The plural form of "dwarf" for a person with dwarfism is "dwarfs", while "dwarves" describes the mythical creature."
No it isn't. Maybe in the personal and indisputable opinion of the person who wrote this it is; but this is not a sourced or universally accepted piece of factual information. In English, the plural of words that end in "f", like "roof" for instance, the plural ends in "ves", - roof, and rooves; dwarf, and dwarves... the person who wrote this is probably an American, because as I understand it, the American dialect does not observe this aspect of English grammar; and the person who wrote this, has probably picked out the word "dwarves" from Tolkein - a writer who grew up using this form as a part of standard English in England, and decided that they like it's quaintness, and associate with Tolkein's mythological style fiction... but to then assert that the laws of English must now change (from an Englishman's POV) to accommodate this discovery of English fiction by an American, is quite unacceptable. The plural is "dwarves" on this side of the pond, accept it; ad we'll accept your version of English. Cheers ;P

87.112.172.250 (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Want to point out vandalism in first section after intro in the first paragraph...don't know how to fix it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.60.49 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is untrue. In general words in "-f" pluralise in "-ves" but this is not true of all; in fact the one you mentioned, "roof", is an exception. "Dwarves", therefore, may be a second exception and the existence of the rule doesn't prove whether it is or not. (And it's Tolkien.) 2.25.110.75 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limb-lengthening surgery[edit]

Is there a reason that limb-lengthening surgery is not even mentioned here? It seems to me that it is controversial, and that the perspectives of both advocates and detractors of surgery are of interest, and informative with respect to a number of other appearance-altering surgeries performed on children. Cherylchase 05:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that no one has added it. Many of our articles are like this-- works in progress. See discussion above about this specific topic. alteripse 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan[edit]

Are dwarf lifespans any different than normal? In the movie 'The Station Agent' the main character said that retiring early was normal for a dwarf. The page doesn't mention anything regarding lifespan. Sahuagin 03:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it depends on the type of dwarfism. Thanatophoric dysplasia and Majewski's polydactyly syndrome tend to result in death in infancy. Individuals with primordial dwarfism seem to have shortened lifespans as well from what I can tell. However there are dwarfs who had lifespans well above average, like Józef Boruwłaski, but others did die young from complications related to their specific condition. Still early retirement, if that does indeed happen with dwarfs, could be caused by physical strain more than fear of early death, I believe most dwarfs have higher than normal rates of back and leg pain.--T. Anthony 05:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Life span for most people with dwarfism is normal. There is a slightly increased chance for fatalities based on sleep apnea, a common problem for many types of dwarfism. Also, in approximately 5% of people with achondroplasia, there seems to be an increased chance of sudden death associated with the condition, but the cause is unknown (source, LPA Medical Advisory Board). The majority of early fatalities in dwarfism seem to be caused by surgical accidents (intubation can sometimes be difficult). Tslug 00:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill B.[reply]

Reproductive system[edit]

I have been looking for high quality information regarding anatomical and hormonal differences in the reproductive systems of little people, if any. I would like to know how their small statue and genetic differences affect this. Unfortunately, I can't find any resources that aren't pornographic using normal search avenues and I am out of ideas. I figured if anyone can point me in the right direction, the maintainers of this article can. Thanks. -Unsigned

Briefly,
  1. Most bone dysplasias do not affect the reproductive system
  2. Secondary sex characteristics (breasts, penis, etc) tend to be proportional to trunk size and are usually within normal size range. Bone development has nothing to do with growth of genitalia.
  3. As explained in the article, hypopituitarism is usually no longer referred to as "dwarfism", but the severe congenital form of this condition is associated with underdevelopment of male genitalia (largely treatable with growth hormone and testosterone). alteripse 01:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny DeVito[edit]

I removed this: "The most famous celebrity with dwarfism is widely considered to be Academy Award nominated producer, director, writer, and actor Danny DeVito, who is 4'10"." DeVito is short but not a dwarf. --DrRisk13 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes March 2007[edit]

I hope I have not offended anyone by deleting some of the material. I removed the material on insular dwarfism and put two different pointers to it because it has its own article and is unrelated to the rest of this article. I removed the references to growth hormone in hypopituitarism and ISS as that too is minimally relevant to use in bone dysplasias. Please discuss here before replacing, thanks. -Unsigned

The article still lack coverage of any of the social aspects such as LPA and the parallel "little people social culture" described in books and television shows. The medical section could be expanded as well: classification systems, synopses of some of the major types, mention of the specific gene defects found recently for many of the conditions, and better treatment of the related orthopedic and neurosurgical problems. alteripse 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is so messed up[edit]

This site is being bombarded with idiots such as User:Abbram and all of those people and I wish that I would stop getting so many warnings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OMGIOTS (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Definition[edit]

The definition given in the introduction of this article claimed that people with proportional dwarfism are not actually dwarfs. However, the cite given for this claim (Little People of America website) says precisely the opposite. I have corrected the article to be consistent with the cite. CKarnstein 02:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Proportional dwarfism is a form of dwarfism. People with this condition used to be called "midgets" which is now generally considered an offensive word (think N-word for African Americans). The LPA website is correct (I am the VP of Programs for Little People of America). Tslug 00:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill B.[reply]

Remove the picture of Gimli[edit]

Gimli is not a typical representation of someone with dwarfism. It is a CGI image of an average sized actor. Dwarves is an invented mythological race created by Tolkein. Dwarfism is the common accepted medical term for people with a genetic cause of short stature. Tslug 00:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Bill Bradford[reply]

I removed the picture of Gimli. The picture of Gimli constituted vandalism and was removed since he was for one a fictional character, and second a fictional character that wasn't afflicted by the medical condition of Dwarfism. No more vandalizing of articles, please, or I'll report the Trolls to the appropriate administrator. Tractrpl 01:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwarf as a race was not created by Tolkien; it has it's roots in ancient Germanic myth and legend. Tolkien was simply rebranding beings from Anglo-Saxon and Norse culture.BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this completely seriously[edit]

But where's the mention of midget porn? I think that's a very large part of the social understanding of little people/dwarves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you are two pencils shy of a full jar. Midget porn *does not* play a large part in the social understanding of little people. I am the Sr. VP of LPA, an organization of nearly 10,000 individuals, and I've met TWO people who have participated in pornography. Second, the topic would fall under porn, not dwarfism. Some people screw horses, should we have a whole section on equine porn under "horses?" Third, since midget is generally considered an offensive term, it would not warrant a topic heading for this page, unless it is discussing the use of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tslug (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dense Dwarfs?[edit]

I noticed that a recent edit ([[1]]) had made mention of Dwarfs being much dense than a normal human, I'm no expert but this appears to be plain out nonsense, also I couldn't see any other external sources to confirm this so I've removed this section, the only mention is for the White dwarf. Rfsjim (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a dwarf and I recently participated in BMI study for a graduate student project at Oregon State University. My BMI, determined by water displacement, indicated that I had more mass than should be expected for my weight (I weigh 135, and am 3'10". The BMI predicted a level of obesity that would have put me in the 170-180 range). However, when calipers were used, I did not show an excess of body fat. So far, the results have not been published so there is no reference. This is just anecdotal info. However, my father would tell you that when he tried to lift me, compared to an average height kid of the same weight, I felt much more dense. Tslug (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Bill Bradford[reply]

Possible References[edit]

Here's a list of references that could possibly be used to fill in the citations needed on this page.

  1. http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/bones/dwarfism.html
  2. http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1204.asp
  3. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dwarfism/DS01012/DSECTION=symptoms
  4. http://www.primordialdwarfism.com/medmain.htm
  5. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/bigenough/special_dwarfism.html
  6. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Munoz.html
  7. http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/dwarfism/causes.htm
  8. http://www.jbmronline.org/doi/full/10.1359/jbmr.1999.14.11.1909?cookieSet=1
  9. http://www.diversityjobs.com/Massachusetts-Proposes-Anti-Discrimination-Law-to-Protect-Short-and-Fat-Workers
  10. http://www.shortsupport.org/Essays/JoeMangano1.html
  11. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B82YC-4JR3W25-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=484aebcc7b547390c2bf74b52f4e25b6
  12. http://www.fpnotebook.com/Endo/Growth/Achndrpls.htm
  13. http://bones.emedtv.com/achondroplasia/achondroplasia-genetics.html
  14. http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/common/standard/transform.jsp?requestURI=/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/pituitary_dwarfism.jsp
  15. http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/001176.htm
  16. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/MEDLINEPLUS/ency/article/001176.htm
  17. http://www.virtualcancercentre.com/diseases.asp?did=364
  18. http://www.limblengthening.com/aboutll.html
  19. http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/healthlink/archives/articles/limblength.html
  20. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4242093/
  21. http://www.nemours.org/hospital/de/aidhc/service/skeletal-dysplasia/disorder/primordial-dwarfism.html
  22. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0873942/
  23. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/nobiggerthanaminute/resources_02.html
  24. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1050326
  25. http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=achondroplasia
  26. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/321/15/989
  27. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/nobiggerthanaminute/special_overview.html
  28. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2002/apr/13/art
  29. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118881418/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
  30. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0010338/
  31. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001116/
  32. http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/diabetes/hypop.html
  33. http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec12/ch151/ch151e.html
  34. http://www.healthscout.com/ency/1/001176trt.html
  35. http://rarediseases.about.com/od/rarediseasesh/a/ghd05.htm
  36. http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/dwarfism.html
  37. http://www.shortsupport.org/cgi-bin/news_list.cgi?category=Adult-Social-Dwarfism
  38. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1632447
  39. http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic625.htm
  40. http://www.springerlink.com/content/k192319344u9tk84/
  41. http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/shortsta.htm
  42. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/dwarfism/diagnosis.html
  43. http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:70117 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusraijin (talk • contribs) 05:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Graded --JimmyButler (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation inserted[edit]

You used an excellent source. Accessible on the web and credible. However, in completing the information in the template you neglected to include information that is available. For example: the date of the entries publication. Be diligent in providing as much information as is available on the reference that you've chose to include. Please correct this deficiency --JimmyButler (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Barty is arguably the most famous person with dwarfism.[edit]

The late Billy Barty, accomplished actor and founder of LPA would probably be considered the most famous person with dwarfism. I am not experienced at editing, but there should be a mention of him under celebrities. Tslug (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Bill Bradford[reply]

The cultural references section is not supposed to be a list of famous celebrities but an overview of dwarfism as featured in culture. I think that particular section is currently in sore need of cleanup in order to set it apart from the article List of people with dwarfism. If you feel like listing some of the movies he took part in and how they referenced dwarfism it would be much appreciated! Deusraijin (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its silly to have a competition for 'most famous dwarf', the are so many successful and well known examples. Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Station Agent[edit]

The TV and Movies topic certainly needs a reference to the movie "The Station Agent" with actor Peter Dinklage playing the main character of "Finnbar (Finn) Mcbride". This movie was a winner of the 2003 Sundance Film Festival awards (Best Drama, Audience Award; Best Screenplay, Tom McCarthy). Phil Nickell (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea - an outstanding film that deserves to be watched simply because it's a good film. The movie 'discusses' dwarfism by showing how folks interact and make friends with the Fin McBride character, and how Fin learns to accept the friendship. I added the paragraph in the Film/Tv section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.220.108 (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illusionary Contradiction[edit]

The first paragraph in this article reads: “Dwarfism (dwo[ʀ]fiz'm IPA: /ˈdwɔəɹˌfɪzəm/) The most widely accepted definition of a dwarf is a person with an adult height of less than 4 feet 10 inches (147cm).”

The second paragraph reads: “The definition of a dwarf is some one who is shorter than five feet tall.”

These are both posed as definitive definitions, yet they are contradictory in the case of grown personages who are between 4'10 and 5', such as those who are 4' 11”. If the second definition is meant to establish a tolerance on varying professionally accepted definitions, then the definition that we give in the beginning should be rephrased, since the current wording creates the illusion of a contradiction. If this is the intent of the second definition, for the sake of clarity the article's introduction should be stated in a manner such as the following:

Dwarfism (dwo[ʀ]fiz'm IPA: /ˈdwɔəɹˌfɪzəm/) The most widely accepted definition of a dwarf is a person with an adult height of less than 4 feet 10 inches (147cm). There is some discrepancy in opinion amongst medical professionals on this height, many diagnosing dwarfism in adults at under 5 feet (152cm). In fact, in older popular and medical usage, any type of marked human smallness could also be termed dwarfism. People who are affected by dwarfism are often referred to as "little people”. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.38.70 (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the article stands now, one section refers to the 4'10" criterion as "the sole requirement" and another as "a typical defining characteristic". This is not satisfactory. Lewis Goudy (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More vandals than positive edits?![edit]

Medical conditions; especially of a genetic nature typically focus on the causes, symptoms and treatments. Why has this article placed such inordinate emphasis of the cultural / social? - a Dwarf's in movies theme? I almost expect to see a section devoted to Snow White and her companions. Compare it to the article on Down's Syndrome. You don't see such a dramatic emphasis on Down's people in the movies. Something about the article seems skewed toward the oddity of it all as opposed to the biology. Also, is this a vandal magnet or what? Just a perspective... Good luck EK with your edits. Of all the articles adopted by our project Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008; yours will likely prove to be the most interesting of them. Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with the in popular culture section[edit]

As of now I feel that cultural references section is more of a long list of trivia and pop culture figures than a commentary on the social existence of dwarfism. I feel that you could simply erase all but the first two paragraphs of the section and lose absolutely no information that is relevant to an encyclopedic description of dwarfism. I've thought about slicing out the irrelevant literature and film references or splitting those sections into their own article as per Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles. Any thoughts on what should be done? --Deusraijin (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contact association[edit]

How do I contact someone that speaks for small people? maybe the association for small people is the ones I should be speaking with. Who are the people that set up conventions for small people?

Jim Anderson 310-980-9563 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.119.105 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terms for Causes[edit]

There are a lot of difficult words in the Causes section. The explanations are not sufficient for me to understand them. --Ettrig (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: Hypotonia is common in dwarfs, but intelligence and life span are usually normal. Second paragraph of introduction. A brief explanation of terms are approprite. The reader should not have to wikilink to determine the meaning of a term in the context of your article. Wiki-linking simply allows the reader to access a more expanded view of the topic than what you can provide in your text. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural Form[edit]

I noticed that the plural form of "dwarf" in this article is "dwarfs." As far as I know, the usual plural form of this word is "dwarves." Or is "dwarves" only used to refer to fantasy characters while "dwarfs" is used to refer to individuals afflicted with dwarfism? Don't worry, I'm not looking to start a big debate over this or anything, I'm was just curious about this and thought that perhaps this has not been brought to anyone's attention yet. –Nahald (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right. I thought that tidbit was already in the article but I guess I never got around to adding it in. Deusraijin (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambigation[edit]

Resolved

I think a search for the word "Dwarf" should lead to the Dwarf (disambiguation) page. The article "Dwarf", now linking to the article about the mythological creature from fairy tales could be renamed Dwarf (mythology), for example. My reason is that the article about the mythological creature can not be considered the "primary article" for the word "dwarf" as defined in Wikipedia guidelines.

The discussion takes place on the Dwarf talk page. Please post your opinions there. Debresser (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions have been implemented as by talk page consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dwarfism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A few comments:

  • No section on how common this condition is.
  • I remember a while back when treatment first became available with growth hormone one of the associations of dwarfism was up in arms as they saw this as a potential end to dwarfism and their association.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your memory is faulty and you are thinking of concern about prenatal testing and subsequent elective abortion, not growth hormone use. GH only makes hypopituitary children tall enough to be "not short". When used in other conditions, it changes height a much smaller amount. Because of this it is not used widely for children with bone dysplasias.alteripse (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review[edit]

In general I believe the article has improved a lot in a few months; however it still lacks important info on the disorder. To give some order to my thoughts I would order my comments following the GA criteria. My greatest concerns are with its broad coverage of the topic.

Well written: I feel it is well written; I knew nothing about the theme and understood it quite well.

Factually accurate: The article is quite referenced and I would say that the quality of the references is medium-high. They would probably have to be improved for the article to become a FA but good-enough for GA

  • Most of the references are from websites; which are not usually considered reliable-sources but from high quality organizations such as mayo clinic or other. Review articles from peer-review journals or textbooks are preferred by Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) and would greatly enhance the quality of the article; although at the moment they are not critical.
  • During most of the article a reference is given for each paragraph and in some places for individual sentences; however I feel that the classification section lacks some references.

Neutral, stable and ilustrated: No problems from my point of view.

Broad in its coverage-organization of the info: My main problem with the article is regarding this criterium. The article lacks important info on the disease which does not permit to have an overall image of it (The GA criterium states: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"). Compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)is a necessity to cover all the important sections in a disorder article. Not present sections are pathophisiology, prevention-screening, prognosis and epidemiology. Additionally I think some sections should be reorganized to comply with this guideline.

  • Classification: It should also include a line on proportionate and disproportionate; since this is also a way of classifying the disorder.
  • Causes: While in the first line it talks about two main causes (achondroplasia and pituitary dwarfism) it later talks about acondroplasia and two other (Growth hormone deficiency and Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia congenita). This is an important inconsistency: no reason is given on why these two are important. Additionally some of the content on the 3 causes I believe would be more suitable for a pathophisiology section since it talks about the mechanisms on why the disease occurs. What I would do is to create a section where different causes (2 most important? 4 most important?) are only mentioned and maybe some info given on the prevalence of each one and a pathophisiology section with their mechanism (How these 2 or 4 causes produce the disease?)
  • Pathophisiology (see comment above)
  • Prevention: Is there any way of preventing it? Are there screening programms to early identify it and treat it? (Some info is already in the diagnosis section)
  • Epidemiology: How common is it? Are there prevalence figures? Does its prevalence vary around the world?
  • Prognosis: What is the prognosis for people with the disease. Some lines about death rates-age expectancy are needed.
  • Society and culture: I would integrate the cultural references and terminology as subsections since the terminology section is mainly about "social use of the term". I also feel the cultural references sections is wayyyyyy too long: Almost half of the article length is on cultural references. Maybe it could be summarized and a subarticle created as is done in many articles (See for example Huntington's disease)

Without a broader coverage of the topic in the lines proposed I believe the article does not comply with the GA criteria. I would not be around for a week; so I will leave this time for any editors to make changes in the article and when I am back I will take a look at any improvements made and perform a more in-detail review if issues have been solved. I am sorry for the bad news since I have been following the educational assigment this article is part of from the distance and overall it has done an amazing work; as has this article and its main editors. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some x rays. Have spoken with these people. If you ask them they may let you use them. http://radiopaedia.org/cases/achondroplasia--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA candidacy[edit]

I have failed the article since no attempts have been made in a week to take care of my recommendations. If the article is improved feel free to ask me for a new GA review when you feel all comments have been addressed. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 07:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Intelligence[edit]

I have heard on one of my biology lessons, that one (or more) types of dwarfism, i dont remember which, usually produces persons with above average intelligence, because of growth hormones affecting the brain. In fact it was even mentioned that the "clows" used by kings and queens, were in fact more their advisors because of this. I havent seen this interesting piece of information in the article, and i dont really know how to edit wikipedia in a meaningful way, so if someone who knows more about the subject or can cite sources should fill in this gap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.215.122 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other species[edit]

I know just about everything from horses to trees can be dwarfed, so what article/section/articles/sections is about that?Pisharov (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Dwarfing, which is linked to from Dwarf (disambiguation).-gadfium 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Society and culture section needs expansion[edit]

This section needs to be expanded to include a section on how to treat LP respectfully. The reason is because when I see LP (and I mean this respectfully), I have a strong urge to pick them up and hug them. I think that such an action would be considered quite offensive. Perhaps such a section can be combined with how a LP likes to be addressed (which is already in the article). A LP would probably be the best person to write it up. Anyway, that's just a suggestion. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarfs v Dwarves = Tamaydo v Tomahto[edit]

"The plural form of "dwarf" for a person with dwarfism is "dwarfs", while "dwarves" describes the mythical creature."

No it isn't. Maybe in the personal and indisputable opinion of the person who wrote this it is; but this is not a sourced or universally accepted piece of factual information. In English, the plural of words that end in "f", like "roof" for instance, the plural ends in "ves":

roof, and rooves;

loaf, and loaves;

staff, and staves;

leaf, and leaves;

knife, and knives;

calf, and calves;

wife, and wives;

hoof, and hooves;

dwarf, and dwarves... the person who wrote this is probably an American, because as I understand it, the American dialect does not observe this aspect of English grammar; and the person who wrote this, has probably picked out the word "dwarves" from Tolkein - a writer who grew up using this form as a part of standard English in England, and decided that they like it's quaintness, and associate with Tolkein's mythological style fiction... but to then assert that the laws of English must now change (from an Englishman's POV) to accommodate this discovery of English fiction by an American, is quite unacceptable. The plural is "dwarves" on this side of the pond, accept it; ad we'll accept your version of English. Cheers ;P

P.S. Tolkein did not deliberately invent this word, it existed before he invoked it in his books. 87.112.172.250 (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this further up the page. 2.25.110.75 (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are they mutants?[edit]

The article on "mutant" mentions that mutation and anomalies in morphogenesis should not be confused. So what do we have here? This article talks about different types of mutations, therefore dwarfs are technically mutants or not?

Everyone carries numerous mutations somd visible, some invisible. We are all mutants. Stub Mandrel (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

animals?[edit]

And how this thing is called in animals? I saw many dwarf-horses and even dwarf-trees. Sometimes there are farms which specialize in breeding and selling miniature animals (such as miniature horses farms)but sometimes healthy animals give birth to a specimen which is significantlly smaller than its normal counterparts. Please add some information on links of this phenomenon in species other then man.

The article on animals is at Dwarfing. It may be appropriate to change the note at the top of the article, which currently mentions insular dwarfism explicitly, to link to that instead.-gadfium 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Chromosome Effects people to have dwarfism[edit]

I need help for my school project yet dont know the chromosome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.115.102 (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many causes of dwarfism, and not all are genetic. You may be thinking of Achondroplasia dwarfism, and the article there tells you that the protein FGFR3 is responsible. Those links should be sufficient to get you started.-gadfium 20:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actualy ment was the Cartilage-hair hypoplasia[edit]

Please I have only a few days left to compleat my project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.115.102 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reminder that the talk pages of articles are not a forum for asking general questions in regard to the subject of the article. Article talk pages are to be used specifically for discussing matters related to the improvement of the article; general questions regarding a subject should be asked at our Reference Desk [2]. It's also a good idea to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a service that's designed to do homework for others. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulliver's Travels[edit]

This shouldn't be mentioned as there aren't any dwarfs in it at all. The Lilliputians were small - far smaller than the shortest dwarf - but of normal porportions. 174.91.6.31 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, see the "Terminology" section to see what the reference is. It's not about the Lilliputians.-gadfium 05:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Has Been Sabotaged[edit]

As of 5 May, 2011 - this article has been sabotaged in multiple places. IrishKisses (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted said vandalism; for now at least. 80.189.224.171 (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed for causes and possible treatments[edit]

This sentence in the intro section, "There is no single treatment for dwarfism. Individual differences, such as bone-growth disorders, sometimes can be treated through surgery, and some hormone disorders can be treated through medication, but usually it is impossible to treat all the symptoms of dwarfism." really, really needs citations.67.41.139.149 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First section: Dwarfism is sometimes defined as an adult height of less than 147 cm (58 inches)[edit]

So women under 4'10 are dwarves? Surely this differs based on gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.193.224 (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ridicule and discrimination[edit]

The end of the introduction reads:

"For a person with dwarfism, heightism can lead to ridicule in childhood and discrimination in adulthood."

Can't it also lead to ridicule in adulthood and discrimination in childhood? Why should age be mentioned here at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.243.18 (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dubious statement on intellectual impairment:[edit]

The original statement read:

The overall stunted growth can lead to impaired intelligence when compared to physical age.[citation needed]

The problem here is that intellectual impairment is being attributed to 'overall stunted growth', which seems to be false even in the light of other statement which does have a citation:

Unless the brain is directly affected by the underlying disorder, there is little to no chance of mental impairment that can be attributed to dwarfism

Joesonyx (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job removing it. That claim had been tagged for 3 years without anyone coming up with a citation to support it, therefore it needed to go. SQGibbon (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarfism height limits[edit]

What is the correct definition of dwarfism? The sources alternate between 57, 58, and 59 inches.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism
  • In humans, it is sometimes defined as an adult height of less than 147 centimetres (4 ft 10 in), regardless of sex, although some individuals with dwarfism are slightly taller.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarfism
  • In humans, it is sometimes defined as an adult height of less than 147 centimetres (4 ft 10 in), regardless of sex; the average adult height among people with dwarfism is 122 centimetres (4 ft 0 in), although some individuals with dwarfism are slightly taller.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
  • A pygmy is a member of an ethnic group whose average height is unusually short; anthropologists define pygmy as a member of any group where adult men are on average less than 150 cm (4 feet 11 inches) tall. A member of a slightly taller group is termed "pygmoid".
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmy_peoples
  • The term pygmyism is used to describe the phenotype of endemic short stature (as opposed to disproportionate dwarfism occurring in isolated cases in a population) for populations in which adult men are on average less than 150 cm (4 ft 11 in) tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenixkil (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.diffen.com/difference/Dwarf_vs_Midget
  • A dwarf is an extremely short adult who is less than 58 inches tall.
  • Any adult human below the height of 4'10" (147 cm) is considered a dwarf.
  • However, since the word "midget" is now considered derogatory and offensive, "dwarf" or "little person" describes any adult human less than 147 cms tall.
  • Less than 147 cm (4' 10")
  • http://www.lpaonline.org/faq-#Definition
  • Little People of America (LPA) defines dwarfism as a medical or genetic condition that usually results in an adult height of 4'10" or shorter, among both men and women, although in some cases a person with a dwarfing condition may be slightly taller than that. The average height of an adult with dwarfism is 4’0, but typical heights range from 2’8 to 4’8.

174.22.10.191 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the start of an edit war[edit]

In the body of the article, I saw a use of "little people" instead of dwarfs. Is looks like edit war fuel. Stepbang the Christian 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Lego's Evil Dwarf[edit]

Lego has done it all wrong for critics with its Evil Dwarf character in June 2017.[3][4] Not sure if this is notable enough for a mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was given one of these cards in Sainsbury's. Here it is. Perhaps more on topic at List of Dwarfism media depictions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dwarfism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dwarfism. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preventable?[edit]

The site currently reads "Many types of dwarfism are currently impossible to prevent because they are genetically caused."

I recently attempted an edit of what I thought was a typographical error. I changed it to "Many types of dwarfism are currently impossible to prevent because they are NOT genetically caused.", because that makes more sense in the real world context of medical practice.

As a physician specializing in IVF, I had a patient who previously delivered a child with dwarfism and wanted our assistance to prevent their future children from having it. So in general, if a condition has a clear genetic factor and there is a clear marker for it, we can prevent it by pre-screening the embryos prior to implantation. I understand now that this article is referencing other causes as being preventable (malnutrition). I wonder if this paragraph could be rewritten for more clarity, because patients get confused. In the context I just referenced, without a genetic basis, dwarfism CAN'T be prevented but with a genetic basis (Achodroplasia), it CAN be prevented through preimplantation genetic diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Lee MD (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there is no universal consensus on whether or not it SHOULD be prevented. I'm just stating that the reality is that under certain conditions, it can be prevented using current medical treatments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terence Lee MD (talk • contribs) 18:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

climate change and dwarfism[edit]

I saw a comment recently that said in a couple hundred years nothing over 40 pounds will be able to survive on this planet. I don't know the details about that but it seems like dwarfism would be an adaptive trait in that scenario. There are articles that address how dwarfism can sometimes be caused by malnutrition. There's mention of people doing genetic testing to *not* have babies with dwarfism. If there's articles on climate change and dwarfism, it seems like it might be important to include that there can be environments in which dwarfism is adaptive in a positive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.22.131 (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence and persecution[edit]

We should add a section of prevalence of Dwarfism as well as persecution both historically and present bias in different societies in the world Nlivataye (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry and I think others have referenced this but saying the sole determining factor on dwarfism midway through the article is categorically false. You can in fact be under that height and not have dwarfism. It is a guideline to test for one of the 200 types of dwarfism if they are that height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:7A84:101:9C58:9F25:B99B:3F52 (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scared of this article. I or i will delete my account now[edit]

This article is scary because it says Homosexual. i think its a distrubngh article because it scares me. i have a disability and i have a scared article. i think this is the d*word or the d----f ward. Coun or can someone please delete this article please. Lizengesquaare (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC) it also runs or runis or edteis my knaji. or kanji[e or ue}. i am disabolity of P.TS.D -please-thank you - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizengesquaare (talk • contribs) 11:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwarfism&oldid=1212467681"