Talk:Tanner scale

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Davdang, Cindytrac, Gabidriller, RwengUCSF, AMONGxicillin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of links to some sites with tasteful drawings of the Tanner stages for both genders.

This would be an add on, quoting published letters about the use of the tanner scale in court. The Tanner Scale doesn't give the actual age, but a "development" stage, which CAN NOT account for breast augmentation, shaving of pubic hair, and photo touch-ups. It is all been said by doctors who use the scale, it only has been tested and works with real life people. This means 1) using the tanner scale on a photo has not been scientifically tested and 2) it doesn't work on images, and Doctors will freely say that.

I have with my lawyer all the paper work that many people will most likely be looking for. (The previous unsigned comment was left by User:FyiFoff on November 15, 2006)

What would the tanner stage even be used for in court? To prove that a picture of an alleged minor is in fact of a sexually matured individual, or that the presentation of the tanner stage in the picture shows that the person depicted is allegedly not sexually matured, and thus under-age? I would very much not like to see this article turned into a legal reference on under-age pornography, and/or a defense against it. Such information about its use in court is a legal issue, which by the very nature of Wikipedia could not be dealt with appropriately, as it would present legal advice, which again by the very nature of Wikipedia, it is in no position to present. Your propose still seems to lack any clear guideline for what would be added to the article. --Puellanivis 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tanner scale is used in court cases which isn't it's intent from the man who created the tanner scale. I'm not try to go for or agaist the use of it, just the fact it's being used in court if you 'want' it printed here or not.

The point is the tanner scale is ONLY a system used for the id of real people for real life things in the ER.

((If not for court cases, people would never google or wiki the tanner scale.))

The tanner scale is a tool the DA uses, to say this image is a minor, which is not the point of the tanner scale. There are letter from the doctor who made the tanner scale and a officer about the use of the tanner scale. -- --FyiFoff 12:35, 15 November 2006 (EST)

First DNA testing for the identity of a splotch of blood at a crime scene was not the intent of the person who discovered DNA. Yet, DNA makes no mention of its use in court cases. Why should Tanner Stage be different? Courts use lots of different available information, and simply because it was not originally intended to be used for that purpose is not sufficient reason to legally exclude that information. Video cameras were not originally intended to be used to collect evidence for court, but now it is undebatable that such evidence should be admissible in court. Despite the same problems with pictures, that they can be touched up, and altered. It's the responsibility of the lawyer to point out that a video may be doctored if they do not stipulate to its authenticity, and the jury/judge to evaluate said evidence and an allegation of doubt against it.

Second, I never heard of Tanner Stage being used by the court before you mentioned it, so the assertion that no one would google or wiki is except for court cases is false. I came across it as an evaluation of sexual development, because when I had my hormone levels tested, there was a listed indication of what levels are appropriate for various tanner stages. Tanner stages *also* are used to cover masculine sexual development, which clearly would not be addressed by "breast augmentation". And if a female has a Tanner Stage 1 or 2 breast, then there is little reason to think that they are not sexually developed, and a tanner stage 1 and 2 breast are *very* easy to identify against a tanner stage 4 or 5 breast. And "Brest Augmentation" cannot account for Stage 1/2 breasts on an adolecent.

The DA will and should use as many tools and evidence available to prove their case, the fact that you can find a doctor who would criticise the evidence presented is nothing special. You can find an expert who will say anything about everything, as long as you look hard enough.

Tanner Stage's use as a piece of courtroom evidence is not notable enough to warrant entry in this article. --Puellanivis 02:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U=So you heard of the tanner scale from going to the doctor, I know about it from court.

1) love the DNA point, dna is dna. But the tanner scale is not a scientic tool, like DNA or a camera, which record ACTUALLY information. the tanner scale has a "window of + or - 1.8 or so of "getting" the "correct" actually age.

1b)DNA makes no mention of its use in court cases. that's fine but i bet 1) it refers to the DNA database. 2) i'm sure somewhere on wiki in say this is how people are released from jail and their convictions 3) it refers to crime fiction (which didn't know about finger prints let alone DNA.

1c) if yo listen to the news, remember R. Kelly and his case, they mention using the Tanner scale. (just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean anything to me, because you are not a cop, doctor, or lawyer, or court worker.) to see tanner scale in court see http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tanner+scale+in+court )

2) The courts use the tanner scale, not the defense. ( I did NOT find a doctor who would criticise the evidence){i will s-plain see 5}

3) the Man, the Doctor who made the tanner scale, James F. Tanner, MD, PhD says it wasn't made for for the way courts use it, see 4.

4) Tanner staging, which was designed for estimating development or physiologic age for medical, educational, and sports purposes (in other words, identifying early and late maturing children), has been misused in the courts when it is used not to stage maturation, but to estimate probable chronological age. For a better understanding of the Misuse of the Tanner Scale, you may wish to read the communication between Detective McLaughlin of the Keene Police Department and Dr. Arlan Rosenbloom; Department of Pediatrics at the University of Florida College of Medicine. <--- this is from http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/task_force.htm

5) The dotor that I talk about, looked at picture for the police and DA, on the stand for the police and DA she says, "the tanner scale works only on real girls, not images" {{{That is very scary}}} she is the only "evidence" of their being a crime. Totally not scientic, her aging, was in fact 12 years to young.

6) there is a bill at the federal level which they are working on for child porn, which use include the tanner scale.

I'm not looking for an "expert" i'm just looking at the fact, and the facts are very clear. If you don't believe me, call you local major hosiptal, find the department which deals with abused child, and they will tell you they use the tanner scale, for both 1)abused kids they can see and touch for court cases, and 2)images of child porn which they don't see the child.

if you have any questions email me seven2of3two@aol.com, we can email or I can give you my phone number. thanks-- --FyiFoff 9:01, 17 November 2006 (EST)

Right, so the federal government passes a law saying you cannot have images of a person who appears to be in an undeveloped sexual level, such as Tanner Stage 1 or 2. I'm sorry, but I don't have much sympathy. You say that your pornography was of an 18 year old, but according to your assertion on the child pornography talk page the images appear to be 10~12 by the tanner stage. (You assert that Tanner Stage is typically off by 1.8 years... this range is reasonable.) Even if your models were actually 18, and you were not looking at child pornography, you are looking at pictures that may as well be child pornography, if they could be confused for a 10~12 year old. So, let's look at http://www.fpnotebook.com/END42.htm where they say that Tanner Stage 2 breasts are at age 10.9 (8.9 to 12.9) (this gives the same range you stated) Now, I don't know how much you know about Tanner Stages, but Tanner Stage 2 breasts are merely puffed up nipples on a flat chest. It is very easy to tell this apart from a mature breast, even if a woman does not develop any mass to her breasts, because a mature breast has a larger, and darker developed nipple. <<< --FyiFoff adds, what happens if you include studio lighting, makeup, and photoshop?? Many actors and porn people have their tattoos airbrushed "away" >>>

Child pornography is often now being determined by apparent Tanner Stage of the model, because even "fake" child pornography of models who are at least 18, but are digitally altered to have their appearance be of someone who would be under-age only fuels further child pornography. They are also attempting to deal with imagery produced as a 3D Model, where the actual age of the model is irrelevant, because there is no physical model. Pornography depicting any model that is not sexually mature is inappropriate. <<< --FyiFoff adds, acutally you're wrong, i can draw an under age child in sexually ways or alter a 18+ model in a picture to a minor--this IS NOT against the law. For child porn to be child porn it HAS TO HAVE a REAL CHILD. (it's sad, but that's the law) >>> If you want detail about the use of Tanner Stage in court for Child Pornography, have it added to that article, as it is here, it is inappropriate. Why? Ok, let's take a look at just http://www.google.com/search?q=tanner+stage... hm... first page no mention of court... second page, http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/police/tanner%20scale.htm first case of Tanner Stage court. Ok, you can have one line saying "There is some controversy over the use of Tanner Stages to place a cronological age of models in child pornography." Still, if federal law states that it's based on the apparent Tanner Stage of the model in the image, then you're screwed, because the law explicitly defines it as the apparent Tanner Stage. --Puellanivis 16:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have meet the models in my case, one is ashley, on the cover of hustler barely legal 9 video. she is a flat aa cup girl, at the time of her pictures she was 21, the doctor said she was 10, the doctor was wrong. another model who is a famous porn star was 26 in her pictures, the doctor said she was 10. She used the tanner scale, it failed. it failed as the doctor said, it doesn't work on images. Also these girls were clean shaved, which throws off the scale.

My ex-wife, at age 35 and after bearing 5 children, was at Tanner stage 1 to 2. I didn't marry her for her body, but imagine if I were still married to her, and had photos of her in less-than-dressed condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.229.99.76 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should add information on standard growth rates of the different Tanner stages, as fast growth is also a trait of puberty. The external links for Tanner stage descriptions already include growth rates, so we should include them too. --NetRolller 3D 12:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the images for male genital development depicting a mutilated (circumcised) penis? That doesn't make a any sense.

• Litigating Child Pornography and Obscenity Cases in the Internet Age By David T. Cox - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• UNITED STATES of America V. Anthony MARCHAND, Defendant Date: March 5, 2004 - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, Appellant,v.DAVID HILTON - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• CHILD PORN: WHAT IS REAL, WHAT IS VIRTUAL? - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genital size given seems to be for the penis in erect state, not flaccid. Also, there's some normal variation for full development, anyway. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is variation (see Penis size); also, none of the sources included in the article or any that I found using a quick web search specify specific penis sizes for the stages. I'll go ahead and remove that content. shoelace203 (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As implied earlier this article is simplified, "Adapted from text by Lawrence Neinstein, MD". This source is dead. May be good to expand the stages using the original source. I know, a suggestion. My plate is already full. -- :- ) Don 22:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC) I understand that English is a relatively difficult language to grasp, but how can you not know how to spell "too"?2600:1700:5DD0:60A0:CDA5:4496:59E1:16BD (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than males and females, the diagrams should be relabeled simply penises and breasts etc. Anatomy need not be gendered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.195.219 (talk • contribs)

Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the pubertal process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about gender identity. The sex and gender distinction exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated here at the Same-sex marriage talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, 'Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter.' The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'"

For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Tanner scale is used for discussing anatomical sex characteristics, as opposed to behavioral, psychological, and social ones. For issues related to medicine, like this one, binary biological gender is still important and widely used. While Wikipedia generally does try to use gender-neutral language, Wikipedia also uses reliable sources to determine how things are described. For things related to human anatomy Wikipedia and the vast, vast majority of sources use a simply binary most of the time. Female reproductive system and Male reproductive system, for example. If you can think of a way to make this more gender neutral that matches what reliable sources say, please bring it to our attention. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tanner scale. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307161350/http://www.chla.org/profile/lawrence-neinstein-md to http://www.chla.org/profile/lawrence-neinstein-md

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scale assume that a human male penis has to be 15 cm, which is above average and therefore misleading. This should be in the criticism section. --2001:16B8:2E35:FB00:FD27:62A0:746D:4E55 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That information is also not found in any of the included references, or any sources I saw in a quick web search. I'm removing this content from the article. shoelace203 (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC) shoelace203[reply]

The diagram of the Tanner Scale for males appears to be featuring a circumcised penis. This is misleading as it features a modification to the body, not the body as it would develop naturally without disease. Corrections to the diagram should be considered.

EarnestElephant (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since creating this comment I've posted on the discussion page for the diagram itself with the same comment. Action can be avoided here.

EarnestElephant (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations of the human penis are often of a circumcised penis. What matters more for the imagery you take issue with is the timing being accurate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that a discussion was started at the talk page of File:Tanner scale-male.svg. But I take the time now to note to you that people usually do not check image talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone know how exactly to prevent the bot from deleting the image section? It seem to me that the images does fit all criteria, but I don't know how to fix the situation. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, I assume you're talking about deletions like this one [1] . They were deleted because they are not freely licensed. There is a very narrow set of reasons in which we allow non-free images on Wikipedia, e.g. you can have a picture of an album cover in an article about an album. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Thanks for reminding me about this matter. I will look into uploading new photos of similar books from the era, which are now in the public domain. Would that be fine with you? --Aréat (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, If the images are in the public domain, you can upload them to Wikipedia Commons. If you're uncertain about copyright, we have a Wikipedia:Media copyright questions noticeboard that can be helpful. Good luck! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Thanks. Just to be sure : with such black and white photos from old medical books, even if it's of minors, it's all legal, right? I don't wan't to have problems.--Aréat (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, Yes. As far as I can tell, the images that you added were deleted for licensing reasons, not because anyone objected to what they depicted. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot: Thanks for the answer. I will upload some as soon as possible. --Aréat (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, regarding this, File:Tanner scale-female.svg seems to be the less offensive version of File:Female breasts five Tanner stages.jpg. In fact, it looks like it is an illustrated copy (with the exception of the genital region). And by "less offensive", I mean what WP:Offensive material states. For example, it states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." So in a case like this, the less offensive image is the illustration of the real-life image since our readers commonly complain having about real-life images of intimate areas rather than paintings or drawings of intimate areas -- the type one would see in a doctor's office. Our readers are also commonly concerned about unclothed images of children because they either see it as pornography or they think others will. For an example of this, see the following discussion about Lina Medina: Talk:Lina Medina/Archive 1#34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again. I could see people arguing that the image you added is unnecessary since the illustration exists. That stated, since this is not a sexual article (the type of article where we commonly go with the drawing or painting over the real-life image), the image is not sexual, and it documents the real-life change of breast development, there is a solid case for retaining the image. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that this is merely the re-adding of real life photos content that were initially there for years on the page on a different form. Besides, this isn't pornography, but medical photography, in a completely non sexual way. All kinds of articles on body parts and/or medical terms currently have similar photographies of the human body. A lot have them from random photos, even less medical looking than these medical book's ones. And yet there have been debates on them too. You will always find people who wan't to remove human nudity, because they find the mere photography or depiction of the human body offensive. Once it's photos, then it's accurate drawings. We shouldn't follow such race to the bottom on Wikipedia. There's human bodies in textbook encyclopedia, there isn't a reason to censor it on the main online one. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the content of these images, but I'm afraid the textbook you got them from might not be in the public domain because the author, Frank Kayley Shuttleworth, died only 62 years ago.[2] In general, an image enters the public domain 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. Am I missing something? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Works published between 1923 and 1964 had to renew their copyright during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain it, which wasn't done as can be seen with a search here : [3]. Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, I was simply noting that people will object to the image and why. Same goes for File:Male genitalia five Tanner stages.png. Already an IP has removed the images. But I was also clear that "since this is not a sexual article (the type of article where we commonly go with the drawing or painting over the real-life image), the image is not sexual, and it documents the real-life change of breast development, there is a solid case for retaining the image." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured I understood you were explaining the potential point of view of others and not yours. I just felt the need to counter it on the spot because these potentials users may very well read this discussion. Plus I guess that considering the matter, I feel the need to explain why these photos belong there as I added them. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see validity in both the argument that the "real-life images are not needed" since the illustrations exists and the argument that the real-life illustrations are beneficial alone or with the illustrations. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, wonderful, thanks for clearing that up :) I don't have any objections to the use of these images then. I understand the preference for drawings over photos, but in this case the photos don't strike me as inappropriate. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The separate image for breast development should be removed, or at least reworked, as it is WILDLY inaccurate. What 10-year-old develops a breast that is a perfect hemisphere? In the next stage the illustrated breast balloons to double its size. Stage 4 shows an areola that inflates, only to revert in stage 5. The other Tanner scale illustration just below this crudely-drawn image does a fine job of depicting breast development.2600:1700:5DD0:60A0:CDA5:4496:59E1:16BD (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image you're referring to, and have removed it at least for now. The image comes from an endocrinology professor I know. I'll loop her to this discussion. Thanks for your feedback. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki,

We are UCSF Pharmacy Students and we will be making some updates to this page, below are our goals for improving and updating this page:

• Insert reference for HIV treatment and use of Tanner Scale and elaborate on how treatment changes based on tanner scale
• Adding a section for History of the use of Tanner Scale
• Update link for the source of the Tanner Scale

Please let us know if there are any comments or changes on the edits we proposed.Davdang (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ally's Peer Review - Hi Group 6C, here is my peer review ~

• Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? I like that the group added a comment about using the tanner scale guidelines for antiretroviral therapy. It has a citation and is written in a neutral tone. I think it would be great if this section could be further expanded with other ways (if any) the tanner scale is implemented in clinical practice. • Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? + Is there any evidence of plagarism? The group did expand on the history of Tanner scale in the opening section and added a reference for HIV treatment using the Tanner Scale. The group also added citations for tanner scale. I think the section on history of using the Tanner scale could be expanded for a more comprehensive overview. I don't see any evidence of copyright violations. Allydiiorio (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie's Peer Review (Group 6b):

1. Group 6c contributed to the overall completeness of the article's opening section. It was great that they clarified who James Tanner was and expanded on HIV treatment. I think the article could be stronger if there was a section addressing the different options for HIV treatment depending on the results of the Tanner scale.
2. Group 6c has achieved a majority of their overall goals for improvement. They updated the references for the Tanner score and provided a citation for HIV treatment. They have yet to add a section regarding the history of the use of the Tanner scale and have not elaborated on how treatment changes based on the Tanner scale.
3. Group 6c's edits were formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. Jhum4993 (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi's Peer Review (Group 6b)

1. Group 6c's edits helped to complete the article. Group 6c helped to add historical context, relevance to HIV treatment, and use of the Tanner Scale in forensics. While these additions were helpful, I think there is further room for improvement in this article (see below).
2. Group 6c accomplished two out of their three goals. I think accomplishing the last goal, a section on the history of the use of the Tanner Scale, would really add to the overall completeness of this article.
3. Most of group 6c's edits reflect a neutral point of view. I think it would be worth the time to elaborate on the "lack of reliability" of the Tanner Scale (last sentence of introduction) to further establish credibility and neutral perspective. Gabidriller (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thien's Peer REview ( Group 6b)

Group 6c edits contributed to their overall goal they did a sufficient job in editing the opening paragraphs to provide more insight towards the tanner scale and give it perspective. Perhaps to improve this overall article elaborate more on the reason as to why there is a lack of reliability.

OK, I get that Wikipedia is not censored, but there could be pedophiles coming to this page and looking at the image for sexual gratification. Morty-0 (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Same as there could be perverts looking at Breast, Vagina or Human penis. So what? The images here are from specialised human health books. We're not going to censor them because they may entice a reaction from some readers. The problem doesn't lie in the black and white pics - which are as tame as can be - but in these viewers. The logic of removing them is how you end up with Burkas, imo.--Aréat (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rvt[4] on changes[5][6] made to the article. Evope, http://pediatric-house-calls.djmed.net/puberty-tanner-stages-boys isn't an appropriate resource. It's a doctor's blog/website, and the website isn't even secure. Even if the doctor is an expert on this topic, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Has his work in the relevant field been previously published by reliable, independent publications? Even if it has, we can and should do better than this. There's a resource provided for the ranges in the section.[7] It's reliable. All we have to do is check whether it supports the ranges listed. If not, we can use a reliable resource that does. GBFEE (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that girls stereotypically are more mature than boys, shall we change the ages in terms of breast development for girls? Evope (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Do you have other resources, Evope? They should be about the Tanner scale. GBFEE (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two links GBFEE. https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/stages-of-puberty#tanner-stage-5 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156451#what-is-puberty Evope 19:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evope, give me some time to look over Tanner scale resources. We have to be mindful of the Wikipedia medical guidance. GBFEE (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm still scrolling through academic resources, comparing them to one another and to the lay resources you've listed. GBFEE (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evope, how do you think the female breast development information is wrong and how are you looking to change it? I can show you the age ranges given in different resources. GBFEE (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GBFEE, while Mathglot thanked me for my edit about changing ages about boys in terms of tanner stage, you disregarded it. Also, I know that the usual earliest age a girl starts puberty is 8 years old whereas the usual earliest age for a boy is 9 years old. For the average age to start puberty, it's 11 and 12 for girls and boys respectively. Evope (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that editor thanked you, but I'm not going to thank an editor for adding an inappropriate resource. I think it's also important for me to say that it's not so simple as "girls start puberty earlier than boys." For the development of certain characteristics, there's a typical age range given for girls and boys respectively. We must report the age ranges Tanner gave for the scale, not a doctor's interpretation of the scale on their blog or website or our own guesses based on "girls start puberty earlier than boys." Since we're reporting on what Tanner described, I also think that we should faithfully reproduce that scale here. For deviations found in resources, we can add a paragraph about it. So let's go back to what I asked you: How do you think the female breast development information is wrong and how are you looking to change it? I said I can show you the age ranges given in different resources. Here in this discussion for your assessment, I can list the age ranges typically given for the Tanner scale based on quality resources. I can then amend the article accordingly. GBFEE (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, since pubertal timing has changed since Tanner first identified the scale, the scale should probably be more up-to-date for the typical ranges given today. Then we can have a paragraph about the ranges Tanner first identified. But the ranges should be based on what is most commonly found in resources describing the age ranges for the scale. I'll begin putting in resources soon. GBFEE (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm away getting things together, might I suggest you read what Tanner says in "Misuse of Tanner puberty stages to estimate chronologic age"? I've already read it. GBFEE (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now read so much more on this, and I've found that it's more than occasional that different resources give different age ranges for the stages and sometimes different descriptions, although the descriptions are mostly slightly different. Here are some resources for observation or to use to change what's in the article: "Manual of Pediatric Nutrition, 5e", 2013.[8] "The Harriet Lane Handbook E-Book", 2017.[9] "Maternal-Child Nursing - E-Book," 2021.[10] For academic resources, I maybe had the most success looking for information about the scale under its other name "Sexual Maturity Rating." Some of these resources would also mention the most common name "Tanner scale", but there's a lot more older resources using the older name. Maybe we should remove the ages and just go by the descriptions given for the stages? Any ideas, Aréat? Descriptions are given more often than ages in academic resources, whether the resources show a chart or table, or only use text. Refer to "Nutrition, Health and Disease: A Lifespan Approach", 2015.[11] Its table doesn't list ages and it says some important things about chronological age (such as wide variations in timing). It's good to give people information about the typical timing, but that's not easy to do when resources give different age ranges and commentaries about them. GBFEE (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way the scale is written about by Tanner and Whitehouse, it is never used to say that a given stage happen at a given age. On the contrary, they spend lenghty parts of their works showing exemples of teenagers of the same age being vastly different in terms of puberty stages. The point of the Tanner scale is that when the childrens do start puberty, they then follow those stages very consistently. --Aréat (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, yep, I read "Misuse of Tanner puberty stages to estimate chronologic age." So would you be okay with me taking out the ages and including a few paragraphs about age and the Tanner scale? I think that's what we should do because of the age variation in resources and because it'll help people understand the scale as it relates to chronological age. The criticism section can then maybe me merged into that. GBFEE (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that proposal. Thanks for your work on the page.--Aréat (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. GBFEE (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, I want you to know I haven't forgotten about what I said I'll do. I put this to the side when I focused on other articles, like the sex differences pages. But I'll do what I said I'll do for this page. GBFEE (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aréat, it's good to see you removed the ages.[12] I ignored the recent IP changes (which were also trollish by at least one) because I knew I'd remove them sooner than later. Next step is what we discussed. GBFEE (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once I make the changes, we should seek to get the article semi-protected to stop the unsourced age ranges that IPs continue to add. GBFEE (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]