document_title: 2018 FA Cup Final

question_text: who scored in the fa cup final 2018

question_tokens: who scored in the fa cup final 2018

root

text: 2018 FA Cup Final

text: Route to the final[edit]

text: Chelsea[edit]

text: In all results below, the score of the finalist is given first.

tag: p

text:
Round

Opposition

Score

3rdReplay

Norwich City (A)Norwich City (H)

0–01–1 (a.e.t.)(5–3 p)

4th

Newcastle United (H)

3–0

5th

Hull City (H)

4–0

QF

Leicester City (A)

2–1 (a.e.t.)

SF

Southampton (N)

2–0

Key: (H) = Home venue; (A) = Away venue; (N) = Neutral venue.

tag: table

text: Chelsea as a Premier League team entered in the third round of the FA Cup against Championship club Norwich City on 7 January at Carrow Road, which ended with a 0–0 draw. The replay was held 11 days later and was a 1–1 draw with goals from Michy Batshuayi in the 55th minute and Jamal Lewis in the 90th minute, going to extra time and then a penalty shootout that Chelsea won 5–3.[9] In the fourth round, they met Premier League opposition Newcastle United at Stamford Bridge, and won 3–0 with two goals from Batshuayi and a one from Marcos Alonso.[10] In the fifth round, Chelsea faced another Championship team, Hull City, and won 4–0 with Willian (2), Pedro and Olivier Giroud scoring.[11] In the quarter-finals, they visited the King Power Stadium to face Leicester City, where a goal for Chelsea from Álvaro Morata and a Leicester equaliser from Jamie Vardy took the game to extra time, in which substitute Pedro came off the bench and scored the winning goal to take Chelsea to the semi-finals at Wembley to face Southampton.[11] In that match, goals from both strikers Giroud and Morata were enough to see off Southampton 2–0 to bring Chelsea back to the FA Cup Final for the second successive season. Chelsea are seeking their eighth FA Cup triumph.[12]

text: Manchester United[edit]

text:
Round

Opposition

Score

3rd

Derby County (H)

2–0

4th

Yeovil Town (A)

4–0

5th

Huddersfield Town (A)

2–0

QF

Brighton & Hove Albion (H)

2–0

SF

Tottenham Hotspur (N)[a]

2–1

Key: (H) = Home venue; (A) = Away venue; (N) = Neutral venue.

text: Manchester United, also of the Premier League, entered in the third round and were drawn at home against Championship side Derby County and won 2–0 with goals from Jesse Lingard and Romelu Lukaku.[13] In the next round, they were drawn against League Two club Yeovil Town at Huish Park and won 4–0 with goals from Marcus Rashford, Ander Herrera, Jesse Lingard and Lukaku.[14] In the fifth round, Manchester United were drawn with fellow Premier League side Huddersfield Town away at Kirklees Stadium, and Lukaku scored both goals in a 2–0 win.[15] In the quarter-finals, they played Premier League Brighton & Hove Albion at Old Trafford, and progressed due to goals by Lukaku and Nemanja Matić.[16] In the semi-final at Wembley Stadium against Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur, Manchester United reached their 20th final after coming from behind to win 2–1 with goals from Alexis Sánchez and Herrera.[17] Manchester United were looking to match Arsenal's record of 13 FA Cup wins.[18]

text: Pre-match[edit]

text: Tributes for former Chelsea and Manchester United midfielder Ray Wilkins, who died on 4 April, were held before the match on the hoardings and the screens in the stadium, as well as a feature in the match programme.[19] Wilkins won the FA Cup with both sides, scoring for United in the initial 1983 FA Cup Final tie, and winning it three times as assistant manager of Chelsea – in 2000, 2009 and 2010.[20] The traditional performance of the hymn, "Abide with Me" was performed by the choir of the Royal Air Force and 14 individual fans of 14 different clubs with a flypast by 3 RAF Typhoons.[21] The national anthem, "God Save the Queen" was performed by soprano Emily Haig who also performed it at the 2018 FA Women's Cup Final.[22]

text: Match officials[edit]

text: The referee for the match was 33-year-old Michael Oliver from Northumberland. He previously officiated when these two sides met in the previous season's quarter-final, in which he sent off Manchester United's Ander Herrera. His assistants were Ian Hussin from Liverpool and Lee Betts from Norfolk. The fourth official was Lee Mason of Lancashire, and the fifth official was Constantine Hatzidakis from Kent. For the first time in the final, there was a Video Assistant Referee (VAR), Neil Swarbrick of Lancashire. His assistant was Mick McDonough, also of Northumberland.[2]

text: Match[edit]

text: Summary[edit]

text: After 21 minutes, Chelsea's Eden Hazard entered Manchester United's penalty area, where he was fouled by their defender Phil Jones with a sliding tackle. Hazard took the penalty kick himself, sending it low to the right past United goalkeeper David de Gea for the only goal of the game.[23]

text: In the second half, Manchester United had more opportunities, forcing Chelsea goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois to make saves. Alexis Sánchez had a potential equaliser ruled out for offside after VAR confirmed the decision was correct and Paul Pogba missed a header late into the match.[23]

text: It was the first time that José Mourinho lost a cup final in charge of an English team, at the seventh attempt, and the first domestic cup won by Antonio Conte, who lost the 2012 Coppa Italia Final with Juventus and the 2017 FA Cup Final for Chelsea.[23]

text: BBC Sport correspondent Phil McNulty highlighted the performance of the Chelsea players Hazard, Courtois, N'Golo Kanté, Gary Cahill and Antonio Rüdiger, while criticising United trio Jones, Sánchez and Pogba.[23]

text: Details[edit]

text:
Chelsea

1–0

Manchester United

Hazard  22' (pen.)

Report

text:
Chelsea

Manchester United

text:
GK
13
 Thibaut Courtois
 90+3'

CB
28
 César Azpilicueta

CB
24
 Gary Cahill (c)

CB
2
 Antonio Rüdiger

RM
15
 Victor Moses

CM
14
 Tiémoué Bakayoko

CM
7
 N'Golo Kanté

CM
4
 Cesc Fàbregas

LM
3
 Marcos Alonso

CF
10
 Eden Hazard

 90+1'

CF
18
 Olivier Giroud

 89'

Substitutes:

GK
1
 Willy Caballero

DF
21
 Davide Zappacosta

DF
50
 Trevoh Chalobah

MF
8
 Ross Barkley

MF
11
 Pedro

MF
22
 Willian

 90+1'

FW
9
 Álvaro Morata

 89'

Manager:

 Antonio Conte

GK
1
 David de Gea

RB
25
 Antonio Valencia (c)
 58'

CB
12
 Chris Smalling

CB
4
 Phil Jones
 21'
 87'

LB
18
 Ashley Young

CM
21
 Ander Herrera

CM
31
 Nemanja Matić

CM
6
 Paul Pogba

RF
14
 Jesse Lingard

 73'

CF
19
 Marcus Rashford

 73'

LF
7
 Alexis Sánchez

Substitutes:

GK
20
 Sergio Romero

DF
3
 Eric Bailly

DF
36
 Matteo Darmian

MF
8
 Juan Mata

 87'

MF
39
 Scott McTominay

FW
9
 Romelu Lukaku

 73'

FW
11
 Anthony Martial

 73'

Manager:

 José Mourinho

text:
Man of the Match:
Antonio Rüdiger (Chelsea)[1]
Assistant referees:[2]
Ian Hussin (Liverpool)
Lee Betts (Norfolk)
Fourth official:[2]
Lee Mason (Lancashire)
Fifth official:[2]
Constantine Hatzidakis (Kent)
Video assistant referee:[2]
Neil Swarbrick (Lancashire)
Assistant video assistant referee:[2]
Mick McDonough (Northumberland)

Match rules[24]

90 minutes.
30 minutes of extra time if necessary.
Penalty shoot-out if scores still level.
Seven named substitutes.
Maximum of three substitutions, with a fourth allowed in extra time.

text: Notes[edit]

text: Jump up ^ Although Tottenham Hotspur played their home games at Wembley in 2017–18, it was designated as a neutral venue for the semi-final.

tag: ol


document_title: United States free speech exceptions

question_text: what is not a protected form of speech

question_tokens: what is not a protected form of speech

text: United States free speech exceptions

text: Communicative impact restrictions[edit]

text: Incitement[edit]

text: The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]

text: Incitement to suicide[edit]

text: In 2017, a juvenile court in Massachusetts ruled that repeatedly encouraging someone to commit suicide was excluded from First Amendment protection,[5] and found a 20-year-old woman, who was 17 at the time, guilty of manslaughter on this basis.[6] The judge cited a little-known 1816 precedent.[7] The woman is expected to file an appeal.[6]

text: False statements of fact[edit]

text: In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that there is "no constitutional value in false statements of fact".[8] However, this is not a concrete rule as the Court has struggled with how much of the "speech that matters" can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.[9]

text: The Supreme Court has established a complex framework in determining which types of false statements are unprotected.[10] There are four such areas which the Court has been explicit about. First, false statements of fact that are said with a "sufficiently culpable mental state" can be subject to civil or criminal liability.[11] Secondly, knowingly making a false statement of fact can almost always be punished. For example, libel and slander law are permitted under this category. Third, negligently false statements of fact may lead to civil liability in some instances.[12] Additionally, some implicit statements of fact—those that may just have a "false factual connotation"—still could fall under this exception.[13][14]

text: There is also a fifth category of analysis. It is possible that some completely false statements could be entirely free from punishment. The Supreme Court held in the landmark case New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) that lies about the government may be protected completely.[15] However, this category is not entirely clear, as the question of whether false historical or medical claims are protected is still disputed.[16]

text: Obscenity[edit]

text: Under the Miller test (which takes its name from Miller v. California), speech is unprotected if (1) "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the [subject or work in question], taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" and (2) "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, contemporary community standards,[17] sexual conduct defined by the applicable state law" and (3) "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".[18] Some subsidiary components of this rule may permit private possession of obscene materials at one's home.[19] Additionally, the phrase "appeals to the prurient interest" is limited to appeals to a "shameful or morbid interest in sex".[20][21]

text: The Court has also held that a person may only be punished if he knows the actual "contents of the material".[22] In Smith v. California (1959), the Supreme Court thus gave a defense of "reasonable ignorance" to an obscenity charge. The basis for this exception is that justices have believed that obscenity has a "tendency to exert a corrupting and debasing impact leading to antisocial behavior".[23][24]

text: Child pornography[edit]

text: The exception for child pornography is distinct from the obscenity exception in a few ways. Firstly, the rule is much more specific to what falls under the exception. Secondly, it is irrelevant whether any part of the speech meets the Miller test; if it is classified under the child pornography exception at all, it becomes unprotected.[25] The rule provides that speech is unprotected if it (1) "visually depicts" children below the age of majority (2) "performing sexual acts or lewdly exhibiting their genitals".[26] Unlike the rules for simple obscenity, private possession of child pornography "may be outlawed".[27]

text: While this exception is very concrete, it is also limited. It does not apply to pornography that people think is harmful when shown to children,[28] or pornography that urges viewers to harm children.[29]

text: Fighting words and offensive speech[edit]

text: In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[30] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[31] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[32][33]

text: One legal commentator has suggested that, along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if the speaker intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.[34] However, the United States Supreme Court has not implemented such an exception, and even if it does, the exception would probably be limited to private figures. The Court held in Hustler v. Falwell (1988) that satire which could be seen as offensive to a "public figure" is fully protected.[35] Such speech is rooted in a historical protection of political satire.[36] A notable example of a case involving offensive speech was the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which struck down a law criminalizing flag burning in Texas.[37]

text: “True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[38] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[39][40] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[41]

text: Speech owned by others[edit]

text: Another class of permissible restrictions on speech is based on intellectual property rights.[42] Things like copyrights or trademarks fall under this exception. The Supreme Court first held this in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985), where copyright law was upheld against a First Amendment free speech challenge.[43] Also, broadcasting rights for shows are not an infringement of free speech rights.[44] The Court has upheld such restrictions as an incentive for artists in the 'speech marketplace'.[45]

text: Commercial speech[edit]

text: Commercial speech occupies a unique role as a free speech exception. While there is no complete exception, legal advocates recognize it as having "diminished protection".[46] For example, false advertising can be punished and misleading advertising may be prohibited.[47] Commercial advertising may be restricted in ways that other speech can't if a substantial governmental interest is advanced, and that restriction supports that interest as well as not being overly broad.[48] This doctrine of limited protection for advertisements is due to a balancing inherent in the policy explanations for the rule, namely that other types of speech (for example, political) are much more important.[49]

text: Restrictions based on special capacity of Government[edit]

text: Government as Employer[edit]

text: The government is not permitted to fire an employee based on the employee's speech if either the speech is on a matter of public concern, the speech is not said as part of that employee's job duties,[50] or the damage caused by the speech is outweighed by the value of the speech to the employee and public.[51][52] Specifically, speech is "treated as a matter of public concern" by reference to the "content, form, and context of a given statement".[53] The exception with regards to balancing the harm of a statement and the value of the statement (the Pickering test) is done by considering the degree to which the speech either interferes with close working relationships, disrupts the office, or even has the potential to do either.[54]

text: Government as Regulator of the Airwaves[edit]

text: Regulation of speech on broadcast radio and television are permissible when they are (1) narrowly tailored and (2) further a substantial government interest.[55] Interests that have been found "substantial" include shielding listeners from supposedly offensive ideas and shielding children from offensive expression. The Supreme Court has limited these rules to traditional broadcasting, refusing an attempt to apply this to the internet.[56]

text: Government as Educator[edit]

text: When the Government acts as a kindergarten through twelfth grade educator, they are allowed to restrict speech in certain instances. The Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist. (1969) that only when speech "materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school".[57] Later court decisions added more situations where restrictions were possible, including student speech about drugs,[58] "vulgar and offensive" language,[59] and school-operated newspapers.[60] The primary basis for the educator-distinction is based on the concept of in loco parentis, the principle that the school functions as parents over the students, thus allowing broader discretion in limiting student speech and expression.[61]

text: Government as Subsidizer/Speaker[edit]

text: The most complex special capacity of the government is when it functions, in one way or another, as the Subsidizer of the speech in question.[62] As a general rule, the government can itself say whatever it wants to, even if this "favors one viewpoint over another".[63] But, the government may not impose conditions on how subsidy recipients spend money they get from other sources.[64] If the government is using the speakers to express its own message, it is constitutional.[65] But this analysis changes if the government is trying to encourage a "diversity of private views indiscriminately". If it is indiscriminate, then under Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001), the government must be acting in a viewpoint-neutral way. However, if the government is basing some judgment of "quality" on the views, then only "invidious viewpoint discrimination" is barred.[66]

text: Government as Regulator of the Bar[edit]

text: The basic principle behind government's regulation of the bar has greater power to regulate the speech of lawyers.[67] A balancing test is employed when the Court considers attorney speech. This test weighs the "interest against the State's legitimate interest in regulating the activity in question [with] the interests of the attorney".[68] Thus, while commercial advertising by lawyers is generally protected, rules of professional conduct and ethical guidelines are still permitted.[69]

text: Government as Controller of the Military[edit]

text: With respect to the United States Military, the federal government has extremely broad power to restrict the speech of military officers, even if such a restriction would be invalid with a civilian. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle in Parker v. Levy (1974) when the Court held the military was essentially a "specialized society from civilian society", which necessitated stricter guidelines.[70] Since Parker, there have been few cases to issue more specific limits on the government's control of military expression.

text: Government as Prison Warden[edit]

text: When the government acts as controller of prisons, it has broad abilities to limit the free speech of inmates. Essentially any restriction that is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" is valid.[71] This broad power also extends to pretrial detainees and even convicts who are on probation or parole.[72] The only limit recognized by the Court is that the prison must provide an "alternate means of exercising that right" of speech, an alternate channel, that still allows legitimate speech to be expressed.

text: Government as Regulator of Immigration[edit]

text: The government may not criminally punish immigrants based on speech that would be protected if said by a citizen.[73] On entry across borders, the government may bar non-citizens from the United States based on their speech, even if that speech would have been protected if said by a citizen.[74] Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear.[75] Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare.


document_title: List of The Jetsons characters

question_text: what is the name of the family dog in the science fiction series the jetsons

text: List of The Jetsons characters

text: The Jetsons family[edit]

text: George Jetson[edit]

text: George J. Jetson[1] (voiced by George O'Hanlon in the TV series, Jeff Bergman in 1990-Present, Wally Wingert in Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law) is a fictional character and the 40-year-old head of the Jetson family. He is the husband of Jane Jetson and the father of teenage daughter Judy and elementary school aged son Elroy.[citation needed]

text: George resides with his family in the Skypad Apartments[2] in Orbit City, in a future with the trappings of science fantasy depictions of American life in the future, such as robot servants, flying saucer-like cars, and moving sidewalks. All the apartment buildings are set on giant poles, resembling Seattle's Space Needle; the ground is almost never seen, though in Jetsons: The Movie, it is suggested that the earth is extremely polluted, thus everyone lives in the sky.

text: When George was a kid he had to fly through ten miles of asteroid storms to go to Orbit High School, where he was the star pitcher of its Spaceball team. At Orbit High School, He was labeled as an outsider and a geek. George is now an employee at Spacely's Space Sprockets, a manufacturer of "sprockets" and other high tech equipment. His job title is "digital index operator."[3] His boss is Cosmo G. Spacely, noted for being short in both height and temper. Spacely usually treats his employees (particularly George) in a rather tyrannical fashion. George's job primarily requires him to repeatedly push a single button (or on occasion a series of buttons) on a computer (named RUDI {Short for: Referential Universal Digital Indexer} in the 1980s series of Jetsons episodes). Once, George complained of his heavy work load; having to push a button for one hour, one day of the week! Often, Mr. Spacely will fire George in a fit of anger, only to hire him back by the end of the same episode.

text: Physically, George is a rather slim man of average height with short red hair and a cartoonishly large nose. His personality is that of a well-meaning, caring father, but he is often befuddled and stressed out by the problems of both his work and family lives. As The Jetsons was partially based on the comic strip Blondie, George himself was probably based on that strip's lead character, Dagwood Bumstead.[citation needed] His wife Jane is voiced by Penny Singleton who played the movie version of Blondie in the 1930s to 1950s.[4]

text: George's most famous catchphrase is "Jane! Stop this crazy thing!" seen at the end credits of the 1960s Jetsons episodes, but is also known for frequently uttering the phrase "Hooba-dooba-dooba!" to express wonder or astonishment (probably inspired by Fred Flintstone's similar-sounding "Yabba Dabba Doo!!").

text: O'Hanlon was known for his portrayal of everyman characters in film and television. O'Hanlon once said of his character: "George Jetson is an average man. He has trouble with his boss, he has problems with his kids, and so on. The only difference is that he lives in the next century."[5] O'Hanlon last did the voice for George Jetson in Jetsons: The Movie, which was released posthumously.

text: In the Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episode "Back to the Present", George leads the Jetsons in returning to the past to sue the planet for causing global warming.

text: George Jetson also appeared in a cameo appearance on The Powerpuff Girls episode "Mime for a Change."

text: In The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!, George Jetson is assigned by Mr. Spacely to supervise a project that involves robots drilling through the surface of the Earth.

text: George Jetson also appears at the Cedar Fair Entertainment Company and formerly Universal Studios Florida as a meetable character seen in 1996 video called "Kids for Character".

text: He also appears on Kanye West's music video "Heartless". He is also seen along with his family, Rosie, and Mr. Spacely in a MetLife commercial that aired in 2012.

text: The inspiration for George's name sake (aside from its voice actor) is believed to be a tribute to the prolific Danish designer, Georg Jensen, who defined modern design in the early and mid twentieth century.

text: Jane Jetson[edit]

text: Jane Jetson (voiced by Penny Singleton in the TV series, Lauri Fraser in The Jetsons: The Best Son, Diane Michelle in Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, Grey DeLisle in The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!) is George's 33-year-old wife, mother of their two children, and a homemaker. Because she is so much younger than George she would have been only 17 at the time of Judy's birth. Jane is obsessed with fashion and new gadgetry. Her favorite store is Mooning Dales. She is also a dutiful wife who always tries to make life as pleasant as possible for her family. Although she is usually pleasant natured, she is quite protective of her family and she can be angered whenever they are threatened. She is also unafraid to stand up to Mr. Spacely, especially when he antagonizes her family and her husband.

text: Outside of the home, she is a member of the Galaxy Women Historical Society and is a fan of Leonardo de Venus and Picasso Pia. Although this wife of the future has both a robot maid and automated apartment appliances, even pushing buttons for housework gets to be too much for her and she has to take a vacation ("Dude Planet"). She has terrible driving skills, turning her driving instructor, a gangster and her husband into nervous wrecks ("Jane's Driving Lesson").

text: Jane appears, with Wilma Flintstone and Velma Dinkley, in a commercial for Dove shampoo. She even appears on Kanye West's music video "Heartless". In one episode of Animaniacs, a female space alien resembling Jane appears twice; once as a receptionist, and then again when a male alien trapped on a treadmill calls out the famous catchphrase "Jane! Stop this crazy thing!" where she comes to his aid.

text: She was included in Yahoo!'s Top 10 TV Moms from Six Decades of Television.[6]

text: Judy Jetson[edit]

text: Judy Jetson (voiced by Janet Waldo in the TV series, Tiffany in the film[7][8], Danica McKellar in The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!) is the 16-year-old daughter of George and Jane Jetson who acts just like a normal teenage girl only with more futuristic tastes.

text: Despite Judy still keeping modern-day "teenage girl" likes and dislikes, such as seemingly never-ending conversations on the telephone and shopping for futuristic outfits, she does not live exactly like a modern teenager, obviously because of the time the show takes place, because she enjoys taking advantage of the many gadgets at her grasp because of the technology (like controllable zero-gravity switches made for accomplishing popular dance moves of the show's time or for other uses). She also gives a summary of how her day went including her problems to a floating robotic diary, appropriately named, "DiDi" (voiced by Brenda Vaccaro).

text: Judy is also very fond of a futuristic rock singer named "Jet Screamer", whom George at first despised until Judy won a date with the heartthrob singer in a contest in which girls who wanted to win a date with Jet Screamer were to write songs, and the writer of the winning song would win the date. Judy won because George replaced her original song with her younger brother Elroy's secret code. George came along to try to stop the date but failed and wound up as the drummer for the song and soon took a liking for Jet Screamer and his music.

text: Judy is depicted wearing a deep pinkish-purple, futuristic outfit and, like a few other Hanna-Barbara cartoon characters (such as Bamm-Bamm Rubble from The Flintstones and some background characters in various cartoons) has white hair that is colored to resemble platinum blonde or bleached blonde hair, which she wears in a ponytail on top of her head. She attends Orbit High School, which her father had also attended.

text: Judy went unvoiced in her appearance in Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, due to the fact a voice actress could not be secured for her (Waldo by this point was in her 90s and retired from voice acting).

text: Elroy Jetson[edit]

text: Elroy Jetson (voiced by Daws Butler in the TV series, Patric Zimmerman in the 90s, Tom Kenny in Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, Trevor Devall in The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!) is a 6 1/2-year-old (self-reported in the first episode) boy who is the younger of the two children in the Jetson family. He is highly intelligent and an expert in all space sciences. Elroy attends Little Dipper School where he studies space history, astrophysics and star geometry. He is a mild mannered and good child.

text: Jetson family household[edit]

text: Astro[edit]

text: This section relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this section by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (December 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Astro (voiced by Don Messick in the TV series, Wally Wingert in Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law, Frank Welker in The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania) is a canine character on the Hanna-Barbera cartoon, The Jetsons. He was designed by Iwao Takamoto, and originally voiced by Don Messick. Despite the stress he tends to cause him, George often regards Astro as his genuine best friend. Astro, despite being clumsy and dim-witted, was very loyal (to a fault) to the Jetsons, particularly George and Elroy. He was more advanced than present-day dogs, in that he had a rudimentary grasp of the English language. In a recurring gag, while George is walking Astro on a gravity-suspended treadmill, Astro begins chasing a cat that stumbles onto it, eventually forcing it to go at speeds too fast for George to keep up with, trapping him. This led to George's trademark phrase "Jane! Stop this crazy thing!".

text: Don Messick would usually give Astro a speech pattern involving replacing the first letter of any word with an R, such as "I love you, George" becoming "I ruv roo, Reorge". This is similar to Scooby-Doo in the cartoon Scooby-Doo, Where Are You!; which was also voiced by Messick (of the two voices, Astro's was slightly higher and raspier than Scooby's).[9]

text: Astro was introduced in the season one episode, "The Coming of Astro". When Jane, Judy, and Elroy proposed keeping him to George, he was against it, claiming an apartment is no place for a dog. In an effort to make his family happy, he gets an electronic dog, 'Lectronimo. Through mishaps, 'Lectronimo fails to catch a burglar whom Astro inadvertently stops. The family gives 'Lectronimo to the police and keeps Astro. In Season 1, Episode 16, a millionaire named J.P. Gottrockets shows up and claims to be Astro's original owner and his original name was Tralfaz. Astro had no memory of his past life with the millionaire, but understood why he ran away, with Elroy rescuing him from the dog catcher - he didn't want wealth and privilege, he wanted a real family. After seeing how much he loved the Jetsons, Gottrockets gives Astro back to them. Despite this, Astro makes an appearance in the ending credits prior to the episode. Astro makes five cameo appearances as a portrait in the music video for the 2008 Kanye West song "Heartless", which takes place in West's actual apartment den. Astro was also in 11 episodes of a 1981 spin-off called Astro and the Space Mutts.

text: Rosie[edit]

text: Rosie[10]   (voiced by Jean Vander Pyl in the TV series, Tress MacNeille in The Jetsons & WWE: Robo-WrestleMania!) is a humanoid robot fictional character in The Jetsons animated television series of the 1960s and 80s.[11] She is the title family's maid and housekeeper. Rosie is depicted as wearing a frilly apron, and was often seen using a separate vacuum cleaner. Her torso is mounted atop a single leg and she rolls about on a set of caster wheels. She frequently calls George Jetson "Mr. J". She was originally called Rosey in her first appearance.[12]

text: Rosie was an old demonstrator model hired by the Jetson family from U-Rent a Maid. The series' first episode, "Rosey the Robot", gives her model number as XB-500. She was in fact outdated when introduced, and her obsolescence was the focus of several episodes focused on her. In the episode "Rosie's Boyfriend," we learn she has a boyfriend, the robot Mac, a helper for Henry Orbit. Rosie clearly cares a great deal for Mac, but is obviously the more intelligent between them, often chiding him for his childish behavior.

text: She was spoofed in the Futurama movie Bender's Game, with a robot that looked like her saying "Everything must be clean. Very clean. That's why the dog had to die. He was a dirty dog. Also that boy Elroy. Dirty. Dirty."[13] She was voiced by Tress MacNeille in this parody.

text: In 2017, a Jetsons comic was published by DC Comics, Rosie is re-imagined as George's mother who was placed in a robotic body by Nexlyfe.[14][15] She only informed Judy that she was going through with the procedure prior to it.

text: Orbitty[edit]

text: Orbitty (voiced by Frank Welker) is the 2nd pet of the Jetson family. Orbitty is an alien with spring-like legs and suction-cup feet. He has the ability to express his emotions by changing color. He is also excellent in fixing and repairing things. This character was introduced in the 1980s version of the series, but didn't appear in the third season (aside from one cameo) or any of the movies that came after it.

text: Other characters[edit]

text: Mr. Spacely[edit]

text: Cosmo G. Spacely (voiced by Mel Blanc in the TV series, Frank Welker as a teenager in The Jetsons Christmas Carol, Jeff Bergman in the 1990s-Present) is George's moneygrubbing and arrogant boss.

text: Spacely is president and owner of 'Spacely Space Sprockets', where George Jetson works. He frequently yells at George for perceived poor work performance, or just when he feels like it. A typical videophone call from Spacely starts with him yelling "JETSON!!!" He attempts to fire George for the slightest offense (his bombastic "YOU'RE FIRED!!" has since been copied by Vince McMahon[citation needed], Hank Azaria as Mr. Costington in The Simpsons and Donald Trump in The Apprentice)[citation needed] , though Spacely gives George his job back at the end of the episode or the beginning of the next episode. Though money is often the sole objective of his life, Spacely is not completely heartless, and will at times empathize or go out of his way to help genuinely help George (albeit rarely). Spacely also often finds excuses to get involved in George's personal life.

text: Mrs. Spacely[edit]

text: Mrs. Petunia Spacely (voiced by Jean Vander Pyl) is Mr. Spacely's wife whom he loves, but lives in constant fear of.

text: Arthur Spacely[edit]

text: Arthur Spacely (voiced by Dick Beals in earlier episodes, Catherine Thompson in season 3) is Mr. Spacely's son who is extremely snobbish and is a rival to Elroy.

text: R.U.D.I.[edit]

text: R.U.D.I. (voiced by Don Messick) is George's work computer as well as his best friend in the workplace. R.U.D.I. is sentient, free thinking and openly fond of George, recognizing his value as an employee and friend. His name is an acronym for Referential Universal Digital Indexer. He has a human personality and is a member of the Society Preventing Cruelty to Humans. Though capable and loyal, R.U.D.I is implied to be antiquated technology, as George mentions his model is no longer made.

text: In the episode "Family Fallout" the Jetsons are up against the Spacelys on a game show. The last question to come up was "what does R.U.D.I. stand for?" George's response was Referential Universal Differential Indexer – this was accepted by the game show host as the correct answer, even though earlier episodes had it as Digital instead of Differential.

text: Mr. Cogswell[edit]

text: Mr. Cogswell (voiced by Daws Butler in the TV series, Jeff Bergman in the 1990s-Present) is Spacely's big competitor. He owns Cogswell's Cosmic Cogs company and causes a lot of trouble for Spacely and George. To a lesser extent, Cogswell is another of the series' antagonists. He and Spacely are always finding ways to bring each other's businesses down. Cogswell has often tried to steal Spacely's ideas and make them his own to gain an advantage (only for it to backfire on both bosses). Just like Spacely, he is also cheap and greedy and not above firing his employees when any little thing goes wrong. Mr. Cogswell's first name of "Spencer" is revealed in the 1980s version of The Jetsons. He bears something of a resemblance to Fred Flintstone's boss, Mr. Slate.

text: Harlan[edit]

text: Harlan (voiced by Howard Morris) is Mr. Cogwell's right-hand man.

text: Sentro[edit]

text: Sentro is a robotic dog used by Mr. Cogswell.

text: In his first appearance in "Solar Snoops," Sentro was operated by the Galactic Sneak where he and Cogswell controlled Sentro into stealing the prototype Microchip Cookie that Mr. Spacely was working on where Sentro posed as a security guard dog that was delivered to Mr. Spacely.

text: In The Jetsons Meet the Flintstones, Sentro is used again by Mr. Cogswell to steal the information about the prehistoric car that Mr. Spacely plans to market. Sentro is thwarted by both the Flintstones and the Jetsons.

text: Sentro later appeared as a boss in the video game The Jetsons: Cogswell's Caper.

text: Henry Orbit[edit]

text: Henry Orbit (voiced by Daws Butler) is the apartment building superintendent of the Skypad Apartments. He has an assistant robot M.A.C.C. who is also dating Rosie the Jetson's housekeeper robot. He is known for giving George advice and is a part-time inventor, although both more often than not tend to backfire on him.

text: M.A.C.C.[edit]

text: M.A.C.C. (voiced by Don Messick) is the robotic assistant of Henry Orbit who started dating Rosie after Elroy figured out that they fell in love.

text: Montague Jetson[edit]

text: Montague Jetson (voiced by Howard Morris) is the 110-year-old grandfather of George Jetson and the great-grandfather of Elroy and Judy.


document_title: List of average human height worldwide

question_text: average height for males in the united states

text: List of average human height worldwide

text: Below are average adult human heights by country or geographical region. The original studies and sources should be consulted for details on methodology and the exact populations measured, surveyed, or considered.

text: As with any statistical data, the accuracy of such data may be questionable for various reasons:

text:
Some studies may allow subjects to self-report values. Generally speaking, self-reported height tends to be taller than its measured height, although the overestimation of height depends on the reporting subject's height, age, gender and region.[1][2][3][4]
Test subjects may have been invited instead of chosen at random, resulting in sampling bias.
Some countries may have significant height gaps between different regions. For instance, one survey shows there is 10.8 cm (4 1⁄2 in) gap between the tallest state and the shortest state in Germany.[5] Under such circumstances, the mean height may not represent the total population unless sample subjects are appropriately taken from all regions with using weighted average of the different regional groups.
Different social groups can show different mean height. According to a study in France, executives and professionals are 2.6 cm (1 in) taller, and university students are 2.55 cm (1 in) taller[6] than the national average.[7] As this case shows, data taken from a particular social group may not represent a total population in some countries.
A relatively small sample of the population may have been measured, which makes it uncertain whether this sample accurately represents the entire population.
The height of persons can vary over the course of a day, due to factors such as a height decrease from exercise done directly before measurement (i.e. inversely correlated), or a height increase since lying down for a significant period of time (i.e. positively correlated). For example, one study revealed a mean decrease of 1.54 centimetres (0.61 in) in the heights of 100 children from getting out of bed in the morning to between 4 and 5 p.m. that same day.[8] Such factors may not have been controlled in some of the studies.

tag: ul

text: Note: Letters in grey indicate non-measured height.

text:
Country/Region
Average male height
Average female height
Stature ratio
(male to female)
Sample population /
age range
Share of
pop. over 18
covered[9][10][11]
Methodology
Year
Source

Albania
174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–29 (N= m:649 f:1,806)
23.5%
Measured
2008–2009
[12][13]

Argentina
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
19–49
60.4%
Measured
2004–2005
[14]

Argentina
174.46 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.01 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Healthy, 18 (N= m:90 f:97, SD= m:7.43 cm (3 in) f:6.99 cm (3 in))
2.9%
Measured
1998–2001
[15]

Armenia
N/A
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,218, SD= f:5.7 cm (2 in))
48.6%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Australia
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18+
100.0%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Australia
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18–24
12.4%
Measured
2011–2012
[17]

Austria
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
54.3%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
180 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24
7.7%
Measured
2006
[18]

Austria
178.80 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
1.07
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Austria
179.2 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
167.6 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:53 f:69, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Azerbaijan
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.04
16+
106.5%
Measured
2005
[21]

Bahrain
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.2 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.07
19+ (N= m:1,120 f:1,181, SD= m:9.0 cm (3 1⁄2 in) f:7.8 cm (3 in))
97.7%
Measured
2002
[22]

Bahrain
171.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18
1.9%
Measured
2009
[23][24]

Bangladesh
N/A
150.6 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,368, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
56.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Belgium
178.70 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Belgium
178.6 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
168.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.7%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Benin
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,015, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.5%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Bolivia
N/A
151.8 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,302, SD= f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Bolivia
160.0 cm (5 ft 3 in)
142.2 cm (4 ft 8 in)
1.13
Aymara, 20–29
N/A
Measured
1970
[25]

Bosnia and Herzegovina
183.9 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
171.1 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Students at UBL,19–32 (N= m:178 f:34, SD= m:7.11 cm (3 in) f:6.56 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[26]
Measured
2014
[27]

Brazil
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+ (N= m:62,037 f:65,696)
100.0%
Measured
2009
[28][29]

Brazil
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:8,299 f:7,938)
13.0%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Urban
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:6,360 f:6,305)
10.9%
Measured
2009
[28]

Brazil – Rural
170.9 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:1,939 f:1,633)
2.1%
Measured
2009
[28]

Bulgaria
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.2 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Bulgaria – Sofia
178.1 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
N/A
N/A
N/A
2010
[30]

Burkina Faso
N/A
161.6 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:7,337, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Cambodia
N/A
152.4 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,081, SD= f:5.4 cm (2 in))
52.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Cameroon – Urban
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
15+ (N= m:3,746 f:5,078)
53.6%
Measured
2003
[31]

Cameroon – Urban
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.06
35-44 (N= m:558 f:1,156)
8.7%
Measured
2003
[31]

Canada
175.1 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.3 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79
94.7%
Measured
2007–2009
[32]

Canada
176.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
25–44
36.5%
Measured
2005
[3]

Central African Republic
N/A
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,408, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
50.0%
Self-reported
1994
[16]

Chad
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.9%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Chile
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
156.1 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.09
15+
107.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171.2 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.09
25–44
41.2%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

Chile
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
15–24
23.7%
Measured
2009–2010
[33]

China, People's Republic of
167.1 cm (5 ft 6 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18+
100.0%
Measured
2012
[34]

China, Mainland
172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
19
2.1%
Measured
2010
[35]

China, People's Republic of – Dalian, Liaoning
177.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18 (Urban students)
0.2%
Measured
2012
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Rural
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
157.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
17
1.6%
Measured
2002
[36]

China, People's Republic of – Beijing
174.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
21
0.2%[37]
Measured
2010
[38]

China, People's Republic of – Sichuan
169.2 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
0.7%[39]
Measured
2010
[40]

Colombia
170.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–22 (N= m:1,528,875 f:1,468,110)
14.1%
Measured
2002
[41]

Colombia
N/A
155.0 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:22,947, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Comoros
N/A
154.8 cm (5 ft 1 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:644, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Congo, Democratic Republic of the
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,727, SD= f:8.0 cm (3 in))
52.7%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Congo, Republic of the
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,922, SD= f:8.1 cm (3 in))
55.7%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Croatia
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
166.49 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
18 (N= m:358 f:360, SD= m:6.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.6%
Measured
2006–2008
[42]

Cuba – Urban
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
15+
79.2%
Measured
1999
[43]

Czech Republic
180.31 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.22 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
17
1.6%
Measured
2001
[44]

Denmark
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–20 (N= m:38,025)
5.3%
Measured
2012
[45]

Denmark
181.4 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Denmark
182.6 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.7 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
23 (N= m:–20 f:20–49, SD= m:NA f:7.4 cm (3 in))
1.6%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Dinaric Alps
185.6 cm (6 ft 1 in)
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
1.08
17
N/A
Measured
2005
[46]

Dominican Republic
172.7 cm (5 ft 8 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,763, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.8%
Self-reported
2014
[47]

El Salvador
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49
50.9%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Egypt
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24 (N= m:845 f:1,059)
16.6%
Measured
2008
[48]

Egypt
N/A
159.5 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:13,813, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.2%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Estonia
179.1 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
17
2.3%
Measured
2003
[49]

Ethiopia
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,868, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.8%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Europe
177.6 cm (5 ft 10 in)[50]
N/A
N/A
17–29[51]
N/A
Measured and Self-reported
2001–2012
[12]

Finland
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m/f:2,305)
19.0%
Measured
1994
[52]

Finland
180.7 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
−25 (N= m/f:26,636)
9.2%
Measured
2010–2011
[52][53]

Finland
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.4%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

France
175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–70 (N= m/f:11,562)
85.9%
Measured
2003–2004
[54][55]

France
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20+
96.6%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–29
17.5%
Measured
2001
[7]

France
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.3%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Gabon
N/A
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,576, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.1%
Self-reported
2000
[16]

Gambia – Rural
168.0 cm (5 ft 6 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.06
21–49 (N= m:9,559 f:13,160, SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.6 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1950–1974
[56]

Germany
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
162.8 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
18–79 (N= m/f:19,768)
94.3%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
178.9 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
166.1 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
29.2%
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany – Urban[57]
180.6 cm (5 ft 11 in)
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–37
7.1%[58]
Measured
2007
[5]

Germany
180.17 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.2%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Germany
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:25,112 f:25,560)
100.0%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Germany
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18–25 (N= m:2,501 f:2,227)
11.3%
Self-reported
2009
[59]

Ghana
N/A
159.3 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,958, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2008
[16]

Ghana
169.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29
14.7%
Measured
1987–1989
[60]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
18–49
56.3%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–24
8.5%
Measured
2003
[18]

Greece
178.06 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–26 (N= m:3,982, SD= m:7.05 cm (3 in))
13.7%
Measured
2006–2007
[61]

Greece
177.29 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Greece
178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:20–49 f:20–49, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Guatemala
N/A
147.3 cm (4 ft 10 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,773, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.3%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Guinea
N/A
158.8 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,563, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Haiti
N/A
158.6 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,932, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Honduras
N/A
152.0 cm (5 ft 0 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:11,219, SD= f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Hong Kong
171.7 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:468 f:453, SD= m:5.5 cm (2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
1.4%
Measured
2006
[62]

Hong Kong
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.1 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
University students, 19–20 (N= m:291 f:200, SD= m:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.2 cm (2 in))
0.6%[63]
Measured
2005
[64]

Hungary
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Adults
N/A
Measured
2000s
[65]

Hungary
177.3 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:1,080, SD= m:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.7%
Measured
2005
[66]

India
164.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
20–49 (N= m:69,245 f:118,796)
69.8%
Measured
2005–2006
[67]

Iceland
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20–49
43.6%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

India – Rural
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
152.1 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.06
17+ (SD= m:7.0 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
72.1%
Measured
2007
[68]

India
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
152.6 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.09
20
3.0%
Predicted
2005–2006
[68]

Indonesia
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
147 cm (4 ft 10 in)
1.07
50+ (N= m:2,041 f:2,396, Median= m:158 cm (5 ft 2 in) f:147 cm (4 ft 10 in))
22.5%
Self-reported
1997
[69]

Iran
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.2 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
21+ (N= m/f:89,532, SD= m:8.05 cm (3 in) f:7.22 cm (3 in))
88.1%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iran
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.09
21–25
17.9%
Measured
2005
[70]

Iraq – Baghdad
165.4 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.8 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18–44 (N= m:700 f:800, SD= m:5.6 cm (2 in) f:16.0 cm (6 1⁄2 in))
76.3%
Measured
1999–2000
[71]

Ireland
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
20–49
61.8%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
179 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.10
20–24
10.4%
Measured
2007
[18]

Ireland
176.60 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Ireland
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
21 (N= m:54 f:20–49, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.6 cm (3 in))
2.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Israel
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
18–21
9.7%
Measured
2010
[72]

Italy
176.5 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.5 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18
1.4%
Measured
1999–2004
[12][24][73]

Italy
174.48 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30
1.6%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Italy
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
167.8 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:106 f:92, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.4%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Ivory Coast
170.1 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.67 cm (2 in))
14.6%
Measured
1985–1987
[60]

Ivory Coast
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Jamaica
171.8 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–74
71.4%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Japan
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20–49
47.2%
Measured
2005
[18]

Japan
172.0 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
158.70 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:1,708 f:1,559, SD= m:5.42 cm (2 in) f:5.30 cm (2 in))
7.2%
Measured
2004
[75]

Japan
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
17
1.2%
Measured
2013
[76]

Jordan
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,484, SD= f:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.6%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Kazakhstan
N/A
159.8 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Self-reported
1999
[16]

Kenya
169.6 cm (5 ft 7 in)
N/A
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,600, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.7%
Summary
2016
[77]

Kenya
N/A
158.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,856, SD= f:7.3 cm (3 in))
52.5%
Survey
2016
[16][77]

Korea, NorthNorth Korea
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.9 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Defectors, 20–39 (N= m/f:1,075)
46.4%
Measured
2005
[78]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
20+ (N= m:2,750 f:2,445, Median= m:170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.4 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.40 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.99 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
96.5%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.5 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.08
20–24 (N= m:378 f:298, Median= m:174.0 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:160.5 cm (5 ft 3 in), SD= m:5.16 cm (2 in) f:5.26 cm (2 in))
8.0%
Measured
2010
[79]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea
173.0 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:339,716)
3.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Korea, SouthSouth Korea – Seoul
173.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–19 (N= m:60,039)
0.8%
Measured
2016
[80]

Kosovo - Prishtina
179.52 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.72 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
Conscripts, 18-20 (N= m:830 f:793, SD= m:7.02 cm, f:4.93 cm )
63.0%
Measured
2017
[81]

Kyrgyzstan
N/A
158.0 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,424, SD= f:5.8 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.4%
Self-reported
1997
[16]

Lesotho
N/A
157.6 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,879, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
49.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Liberia
N/A
157.3 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,281, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Lithuania
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:197 SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
14.7%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Urban
178.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:91 SD= m:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania – Rural
176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19–25 (N= m:106 SD= m:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.9%
Measured
2005[82]
[83]

Lithuania
181.3 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
18
2.1%
Measured
2001
[84]

Madagascar
N/A
154.3 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,024, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.6%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Malawi – Urban
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
155 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
16–60 (N= m:583 f:315, SD= m:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:9.4 cm (3 1⁄2 in))
101.1%
Measured
2000
[85]

Malaysia
166.3 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
154.7 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Malay, 20–24 (N= m:749 f:893, Median= m:166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in) f:155 cm (5 ft 1 in), SD= m:6.46 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.04 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.7%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
168.5 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
Chinese, 20–24 (N= m:407 f:453, Median= m:169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in) f:158 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.98 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.72 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
4.1%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
169.1 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
155.4 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.09
Indian, 20–24 (N= m:113 f:140, Median= m:168 cm (5 ft 6 in) f:156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in), SD= m:5.84 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.18 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.2%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Malaysia
163.3 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.9 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.08
Other indigenous, 20–24 (N= m:257 f:380, Median= m:163 cm (5 ft 4 in) f:152 cm (5 ft 0 in), SD= m:6.26 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.95 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.4%[86]
Measured
1996
[87]

Mali – Southern Mali
171.3 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160.4 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Rural adults (N= m:121 f:320, SD= m:6.6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
N/A
Measured
1992
[88]

Malta
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.06
18+
100.0%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Malta
175.2 cm (5 ft 9 in)
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
25–34
17.5%
Self-reported
2003
[89]

Mexico
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–65
62.0%
Measured
2014
[90]

Mexico – Bajío
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Adults
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Mexico – Central
N/A
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
26–39
N/A
Measured
N/A
[91]

Moldova
N/A
161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,757, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
45.9%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Mongolia
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.07
25–34 (N= m:158 f:181)
27.6%
Measured
2006
[92]

Montenegro
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168.4 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UCG,18–37 (N= m:178 f:107, SD= m:7.06 cm (3 in) f:5.27 cm (2 in))
3.2%[93]
Measured
2011
[24]

Morocco
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:10,334, SD= f:6.0 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.7%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Mozambique
N/A
156 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,912, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
55.0%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Namibia
N/A
160.7 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:5,575, SD= f:7.1 cm (3 in))
50.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Nepal
163.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
150.8 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,280, SD= f:5.5 cm (2 in))
52.9%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Netherlands
181 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
169 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
1.07
Caucasians,16–18[94] (N= m:37 f:52, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
3.7%[95]
Measured
2003
[96]

Netherlands
182.70 cm (6 ft 0 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
7.8%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Netherlands
180.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.5 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
20+
96.8%
Self-reported
2010
[9][29][97]

Netherlands
183.2 cm (6 ft 0 in)
169.9 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
20–30
16.9%
Self-reported
2010
[97]

Netherlands
183.8 cm (6 ft 1⁄2 in)
170.7 cm (5 ft 7 in)
1.08
21 (N= m:74 f:50, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Self-reported
2009
[98]

New Zealand
177 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–49
56.9%
Measured
2007
[18]

New Zealand
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–24
9.1%
Measured
2007
[18]

Nicaragua
N/A
153.7 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49
54.1%
Self-reported
2001
[16]

Nigeria
163.8 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
157.8 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.04
18–74
98.6%
Measured
1994–1996
[74]

Nigeria
167.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.04
20–29 (N= m:139 f:76, SD= m:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.7 cm (2 in))
33.2%
Measured
2011
[99]

Norway
180.0 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:18,297)
36.0%
Measured
2011
[100]

Norway – Vest-Agder
181.7 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:770)
1.33%
Measured
2011
[100]

Norway – Oslo
179.8 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:1,297)
4.78%
Measured
2011
[100]

Norway – Finnmark
177.5 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 18–44 (N= m:218)
0.54%
Measured
2011
[100]

Norway
179.63 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
8.5%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Norway
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.08
20–85 (N= m:1534 f:1743)
93.6%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[9][29][101]

Norway
182.4 cm (6 ft 0 in)
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.09
20–25 (SD= m:5.3 cm (2 in) f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
9.5%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[101]

Norway
181.6 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
168.2 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
26–35 (SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
17.0%
Self-reported
2008–2009
[101]

Peru
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20+
93.8%
Measured
2005
[102]

Philippines
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
N/A
N/A
18+
-
Measured
1980
[103]

Poland
178.7 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.1 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18 (N= m:846 f:1,126)
1.6%
Measured
2010
[104]

Portugal
173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
N/A
N/A
18 (N= m:696)
1.5%
Measured
2008
[12][105]

Portugal
172.30 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
9.7%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Portugal
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
161 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–50
56.7%
Self-reported
2001
[18]

Portugal
173.7 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.06
21 (N= m:87 f:106, SD= m:8.2 cm (3 in) f:5.3 cm (2 in))
1.9%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Qatar
170.8 cm (5 ft 7 in)
161.1 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.06
18
1.9%
Measured
2005
[24][106]

Rwanda
N/A
157.7 cm (5 ft 2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:3,202, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Romania
172 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
157 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.10
N/A
N/A
Measured
2007
[107]

Russia
177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.1 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
24
1.9%
Measured
2004
[24][108]

Samoa
N/A
166.6 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
N/A
18–28 (N= f:55 SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
32.6%
Measured
2004
[109]

Saudi Arabia
168.9 cm (5 ft 6 1⁄2 in)
156.3 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18
3.0%
Measured
2010
[24][110]

Senegal
N/A
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,533, SD= f:6.7 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.4%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

Serbia
182.0 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Students at UNS,18–30 (N= m:318 f:76, SD= m:6.74 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.88 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.7%[111]
Measured
2012
[112]

Singapore
171 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
160 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
Chinese students at TP,16–18[113] (N= m:52 f:49, SD= m:6 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5 cm (2 in))
0.3%[114][115]
Measured
2003
[96]

Slovakia
179.4 cm (5 ft 10 1⁄2 in)
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
18
2.0%
Measured
2004
[116]

Slovenia – Ljubljana
180.3 cm (5 ft 11 in)
167.4 cm (5 ft 6 in)
1.08
19
0.2%[117]
Measured
2011
[118]

South Africa
168 cm (5 ft 6 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.06
19 (N= m:121 f:118)
3.6%
Measured
2003
[119]

Sri Lanka
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
151.4 cm (4 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18+ (N= m:1,768 f:2,709, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
100.0%
Measured
2005–2006
[120]

Sri Lanka
165.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
154.0 cm (5 ft 1⁄2 in)
1.08
18–29 (N= m:312 f:427, SD= m:7.1 cm (3 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
30.7%
Measured
2005–2006
[120]

Spain
173.1 cm (5 ft 8 in)
N/A
N/A
18–70 (N= m:1,298 [121][122] )
88.2%
Measured
2013–2014
[123][124]

Spain
N/A
159.6 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
18–70 (N= f:8,217 [125][126] )
83.5%
Measured
2007–2008
[29][122][123][126]

Spain
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
18–34 (N= m:554-1,061 [122][127] )
26.8%
Measured
2013–2014
[123][124][128][129]

Spain
N/A
162.6 cm (5 ft 4 in)
N/A
18–19 (N= f:656 [126][130] )
2.4%
Measured
2007–2008
[122][123][126]

Spain
175.5 cm (5 ft 9 in)
N/A
N/A
30–34
11.1%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Spain
174 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
163 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.07
20–49
57.0%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
176 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
166 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.06
20–24
7.5%
Self-reported
2007
[18]

Spain
178 cm (5 ft 10 in)
166.2 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.07
21 (N= m:111 f:94, SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.8%
Self-reported
2001
[20]

Swaziland
N/A
159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,612, SD= f:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
51.0%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

Sweden
181.5 cm (5 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
166.8 cm (5 ft 5 1⁄2 in)
1.09
20–29
15.6%
Measured
2008
[131]

Sweden
180.4 cm (5 ft 11 in)
N/A
N/A
30
8.0%
Estimates
1976–1980
[19]

Sweden
177.9 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.6 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
20–74
86.3%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[132]

Switzerland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
N/A
N/A
Conscripts, 19 (N= m:12,447, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in), SD= m:6.52 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
1.5%
Measured
2009
[133]

Switzerland
175.4 cm (5 ft 9 in)
164 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20–74
88.8%
Self-reported
1987–1994
[132]

Taiwan
171.4 cm (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in)
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
1.07
17 (N= m:200 f:200)
1.7%
Measured
2011
[134][135][136]

Tanzania
N/A
156.6 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:6,033, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
52.8%
Self-reported
2004
[16]

Thailand
170.3 cm (5 ft 7 in)
159 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.07
STOU students, 15–19 (N= m:839 f:1,636, SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
0.2%[137]
Self-reported
2005
[138]

Togo
N/A
159.0 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,728, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
1998
[16]

Tonga
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
165.3 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.07
40 (N= m:241 f:299)
1.5%
Measured
2001
[139]

Turkey
173.6 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.07
20-22 (N= m:322 f:247)
8.3%
Measured
2007
[12][24][140]

Turkey – Ankara
174.1 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.10
18–59 (N= m:703 f:512, Median= m:169.7 cm (5 ft 7 in) f:157.5 cm (5 ft 2 in), SD= m:6.9 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:6.4 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
5.1%[141]
Measured
2004–2006
[142]

Turkey – Ankara
176.1 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
18–29 (N= m:390 f:163, Median= m:173.9 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in) f:164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in), SD= m:6.3 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:7.0 cm (3 in))
2.0%[141]
Measured
2004–2006
[142]

Turkey
N/A
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,393, SD= f:5.6 cm (2 in))
54.5%
Self-reported
2003
[16]

Uganda
N/A
159.2 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:1,666, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
53.4%
Self-reported
2006
[16]

United Arab Emirates
173.4 cm (5 ft 8 1⁄2 in)
156.4 cm (5 ft 1 1⁄2 in)
1.11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
[143]

United Kingdom – England
175.3 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:3,154 f:3,956)
103.2%[144]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – England
177.8 cm (5 ft 10 in)
164.5 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
25–34 (N= m:415 f:611)
17.2%[144]
Measured
2012
[4]

United Kingdom – Scotland
175.0 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.3 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.08
16+ (N= m:2,512 f:3,180, Median= m:174.8 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.2 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
103.0%[144]
Measured
2008
[145]

United Kingdom – Scotland
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.5 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.09
25–34 (N= m:286 f:413, Median= m:178.0 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.9 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
15.7%[144]
Measured
2008
[145]

United Kingdom – Wales
177.0 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.0 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.09
16+
103.2%[144]
Self-reported
2009
[146]

United States
175.7 cm (5 ft 9 in)
161.8 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in)
1.09
All Americans, 20+ (N= m:5,232 f:5,547, Median= m:175.6 cm (5 ft 9 in) f:161.9 cm (5 ft 3 1⁄2 in))
69%
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States
176.4 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in)
162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in)
1.08
All Americans, 20–29 (N= m:937 f:928, Median= m:176.2 cm (5 ft 9 1⁄2 in) f:162.9 cm (5 ft 4 in))
13.9%
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States – African Americans
177.4 cm (5 ft 10 in)
163.6 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in)
1.08
African Americans, 20–39 (N= m:405 f:418, Median= m:177.2 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:163.7 cm (5 ft 4 1⁄2 in))
3.4%[148]
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States – Hispanic and Latino Americans
172.4 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.9 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.08
Hispanic/Latino Americans, 20–39 (N= m:385 f:428, Median= m:172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:159.1 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
4.4%[148]
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States – Mexican Americans
172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Mexican Americans, 20–39 (N= m:233 f:247, Median= m:172.1 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.7 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in))
2.8%[148]
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States – Asian Americans
172.3 cm (5 ft 8 in)
158.4 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
1.09
Non-Hispanic Asians, 20–39 (N= m:260 f:272, Median= m:172.2 cm (5 ft 8 in) f:158.1 cm (5 ft 2 in))
1.3%[148]
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

United States – Non-Hispanic whites
178.2 cm (5 ft 10 in)
165.0 cm (5 ft 5 in)
1.08
Non-Hispanic White Americans, 20–39 (N= m:715 f:689, Median= m:178.3 cm (5 ft 10 in) f:164.8 cm (5 ft 5 in))
17.1%[148]
Measured
2011–2014
[147]

Uruguay
170 cm (5 ft 7 in)
158 cm (5 ft 2 in)
1.08
Adults (N= m:2,249 f:2,114)
N/A
Measured
1990
[149]

Uzbekistan
N/A
159.9 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:2,635, SD= f:6.1 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.6%
Self-reported
1996
[16]

Vietnam
162.1 cm (5 ft 4 in)
152.2 cm (5 ft 0 in)
1.07
25–29 (SD= m:5.39 cm (2 in) f:5.39 cm (2 in))
15.9%
Measured
1992–1993
[60]

Vietnam
165.7 cm (5 ft 5 in)
155.2 cm (5 ft 1 in)
1.07
Students, 20–25 (N= m:1,000 f:1,000, SD= m:6.55 cm (2 1⁄2 in) f:5.32 cm (2 in))
2.0%[150]
Measured
2006–2007
[151]

Zambia
N/A
158.5 cm (5 ft 2 1⁄2 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,091, SD= f:6.5 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
54.2%
Self-reported
2007
[16]

Zimbabwe
N/A
160.3 cm (5 ft 3 in)
N/A
25–49 (N= f:4,746, SD= f:6.2 cm (2 1⁄2 in))
47.3%
Self-reported
2005
[16]

text: Notes

text: Jump up ^ In this case, data that are representative of the majority of the country or region's adult population are those that factor in over 50% of the country or region's population aged 18 or over.


document_title: United States one hundred-dollar bill

question_text: when did the new $100 bill come out

question_tokens: when did the new $ 100 bill come out

text: United States one hundred-dollar bill

text: Large size note history[edit]

text: (approximately 7.4218 × 3.125 in ≅ 189 × 79 mm)

text:
1861: Three-year 100-dollar Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 7.3% interest per year. These notes were not primarily designed to circulate, and were payable to the original purchaser of the dollar bill. The obverse of the note featured a portrait of General Winfield Scott.
1862: The first $100 United States Note was issued. Variations of this note were issued that resulted in slightly different wording (obligations) on the reverse; the note was issued again in Series of 1863.
1863: Both one and two and one half year Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 5% interest. The one-year Interest Bearing Notes featured a vignette of George Washington in the center, and allegorical figures representing "The Guardian" to the right and "Justice" to the left. The two-year notes featured a vignette of the U.S. treasury building in the center, a farmer and mechanic to the left, and sailors firing a cannon to the right.
1863: The first $100 Gold Certificates were issued with a bald eagle to the left and large green 100 in the middle of the obverse. The reverse was distinctly printed in orange instead of green like all other U.S. federal government issued notes of the time.
1864: Compound Interest Treasury Notes were issued that were intended to circulate for three years and paid 6% interest compounded semi-annually. The obverse is similar to the 1863 one-year Interest Bearing Note.
1869: A new $100 United States Note was issued with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the left of the obverse and an allegorical figure representing architecture on the right. Although this note is technically a United States Note, TREASURY NOTE appeared on it instead of UNITED STATES NOTE.
1870: A new $100 Gold Certificate with a portrait of Thomas Hart Benton on the left side of the obverse was issued. The note was one-sided.
1870: One hundred dollar National Gold Bank Notes were issued specifically for payment in gold coin by participating national gold banks. The obverse featured vignettes of Perry leaving the USS St. Lawrence and an allegorical figure to the right; the reverse featured a vignette of U.S. gold coins.
1875: The reverse of the Series of 1869 United States Note was redesigned. Also, TREASURY NOTE was changed to UNITED STATES NOTE on the obverse. This note was issued again in Series of 1878 and Series of 1880.
1878: The first $100 silver certificate was issued with a portrait of James Monroe on the left side of the obverse. The reverse was printed in black ink, unlike any other U.S. Federal Government issued dollar bill.
1882: A new and revised $100 Gold Certificate was issued. The obverse was partially the same as the Series 1870 gold certificate; the border design, portrait of Thomas H. Benton, and large word GOLD, and gold-colored ink behind the serial numbers were all retained. The reverse featured a perched bald eagle and the Roman numeral for 100, C.
1890: One hundred dollar Treasury or "Coin Notes" were issued for government purchases of silver bullion from the silver mining industry. The note featured a portrait of Admiral David G. Farragut. The note was also nicknamed a "watermelon note" because of the watermelon-shaped 0's in the large numeral 100 on the reverse; the large numeral 100 was surrounded by an ornate design that occupied almost the entire note.
1891: The reverse of the Series of 1890 Treasury Note was redesigned because the Treasury felt that it was too "busy" which would make it too easy to counterfeit. More open space was incorporated into the new design.
1891: The obverse of the $100 Silver Certificate was slightly revised with some aspects of the design changed. The reverse was completely redesigned and also began to be printed in green ink.
1914: The first $100 Federal Reserve Note was issued with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the obverse and allegorical figures representing labor, plenty, America, peace, and commerce on the reverse.
1922: The Series of 1880 Gold Certificate was re-issued with an obligation to the right of the bottom-left serial number on the obverse.

text: Small size note history[edit]

text: (6.14 × 2.61 in ≅ 157 × 66 mm)

text:
1929: Under the Series of 1928, all U.S. currency was changed to its current size and began to carry a standardized design. All variations of the $100 bill would carry the same portrait of Benjamin Franklin, same border design on the obverse, and the same reverse with a vignette of Independence Hall. The $100 bill was issued as a Federal Reserve Note with a green seal and serial numbers and as a Gold Certificate with a golden seal and serial numbers.
1933: As an emergency response to the Great Depression, additional money was pumped into the American economy through Federal Reserve Bank Notes issued under Series of 1929. This was the only small-sized $100 bill that had a slightly different border design on the obverse. The serial numbers and seal on it were brown.
1934: The redeemable in gold clause was removed from Federal Reserve Notes due to the U.S. withdrawing from the gold standard.
1934: Special $100 Gold Certificates were issued for non-public, Federal Reserve bank-to-bank transactions. These notes featured a reverse printed in orange instead of green like all other small-sized notes. The wording on the obverse was also changed to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN GOLD PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
1950: Many minor aspects on the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note were changed. Most noticeably, the treasury seal, gray numeral 100, and the Federal Reserve Seal were made smaller; also, the Federal Reserve Seal had spikes added around it.
1963: Because dollar bills were no longer redeemable in silver, beginning with Series 1963A, WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND was removed from the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note and the obligation was shortened to its current wording, THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. Also, IN GOD WE TRUST was added to the reverse.
1966: The first and only small-sized $100 United States Note was issued with a red seal and serial numbers. It was the first of all United States currency to use the new U.S. treasury seal with wording in English instead of Latin. Like the Series 1963 $2 and $5 United States Notes, it lacked WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND on the obverse and featured the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the reverse. The $100 United States Note was issued due to legislation that specified a certain dollar amount of United States Notes that were to remain in circulation. Because the $2 and $5 United States Notes were soon to be discontinued, the dollar amount of United States Notes would drop, thus warranting the issuing of this note.
1990: The first new-age anti-counterfeiting measures were introduced under Series 1990 with microscopic printing around Franklin's portrait and a metallic security strip on the left side of the bill.
March 25, 1996: The first major design change since 1929 took place with the adoption of a contemporary style layout. The main intent of the new design was to deter counterfeiting. New security features included a watermark of Franklin to the right side of the bill, optically variable ink (OVI) that changed from green to black when viewed at different angles, a higher quality and enlarged portrait of Franklin, and hard-to-reproduce fine line printing around Franklin's portrait and Independence Hall. Older security features such as interwoven red and blue silk fibers, microprinting, and a plastic security thread (which now glows pink (nominally red) under a black light) were kept. The individual Federal Reserve Bank Seal was changed to a unified Federal Reserve Seal along with an additional prefix letter being added to the serial number, w. The first of the Series 1996 bills were produced in October 1995.[7]
February 2007: The first $100 bills (a shipment of 128,000 star notes from the San Francisco FRB) from the Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas are produced, almost 16 years after the first notes from the facility were produced. The shipment makes the $100 bill the most recently added production to the facility's lineup. Four-point-six billion notes were produced at the facility with series 2006 and Cabral-Paulson signatures, including about 4.15 million star notes.[8]
October 8, 2013: The newest $100 bill was announced on April 21, 2010, and entered circulation on October 8, 2013.[4] In addition to design changes introduced in 1996, the obverse features the brown quill that was used to sign the Declaration of Independence; faint phrases from the Declaration of Independence; a bell in the inkwell that appears and disappears depending on the angle at which the bill is viewed; teal background color; a borderless portrait of Benjamin Franklin; a blue "3D security ribbon" (trademarked "Motion" by Crane Currency[9]) on which images of Liberty Bells shift into numerical designations of "100" as the note is tilted; and to the left of Franklin, small yellow 100s whose zeros form the EURion constellation. The reverse features small yellow EURion 100s and has the fine lines removed from around the vignette of Independence Hall. These notes were issued as Series 2009A with Rios-Geithner signatures. Many of these changes are intended not only to thwart counterfeiting but to also make it easier to quickly check authenticity and help vision impaired people.[10]

text:
Both views (obverse and reverse) of the Series 1934 $100 Gold Certificate.

Front of a Series 1966 $100 United States note.

Obverse of a Series 2006A $100 note.

Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill from 1929 until 1996.

H.B.Hall engraving of Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of an older Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill 1996 onward.

Comparison between a Series 1990 note with a 2013 note (1996 design not shown).

text: Removal of large denomination bills ($500 and up)[edit]

text: The Federal Reserve announced the removal of large denominations of United States currency from circulation on July 14, 1969. The one-hundred-dollar bill was the largest denomination left in circulation. All the Federal Reserve Notes produced from Series 1928 up to before Series 1969 (i.e. 1928, 1928A, 1934, 1934A, 1934B, 1934C, 1934D, 1950, 1950A, 1950B, 1950C, 1950D, 1950E, 1963, 1966, 1966A) of the $100 denomination added up to $23.1708 billion.[11] Since some banknotes had been destroyed, and the population was 200 million at the time, there was less than one $100 banknote per capita circulating.

text: As of June 30, 1969, the U.S. coins and banknotes in circulation of all denominations were worth $50.936 billion of which $4.929 billion was circulating overseas.[12] So the currency and coin circulating within the United States was $230 per capita. Since 1969, the demand for U.S. currency has greatly increased. The total amount of circulating currency and coin passed one trillion dollars in March 2011.

text: Despite the degradation in the value of the U.S. $100 banknote (which was worth more in 1969 than a U.S. $500 note would be worth today), and despite competition from some more valuable foreign notes (most notably, the 500 euro banknote), there are no plans to re-issue banknotes above $100. The widespread use of electronic means to conduct high-value transactions today has made large-scale physical cash transactions obsolete and therefore, from the government's point of view, unnecessary for the conduct of legitimate business. Quoting T. Allison, Assistant to the Board of the Federal Reserve System in his October 8, 1998 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Committee on Banking and Financial Services:

text: There are public policies against reissuing the $500 note, mainly because many of those efficiency gains, such as lower shipment and storage costs, would accrue not only to legitimate users of bank notes, but also to money launderers, tax evaders and a variety of other law breakers who use currency in their criminal activity. While it is not at all clear that the volume of illegal drugs sold or the amount of tax evasion would necessarily increase just as a consequence of the availability of a larger dollar denomination bill, it no doubt is the case that if wrongdoers were provided with an easier mechanism to launder their funds and hide their profits, enforcement authorities could have a harder time detecting certain illicit transactions occurring in cash.[13]