Talk:Tanner scale

message: 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)
thread_title:  Growth rates and the Tanner scale 

message: *Litigating Child Pornography and Obscenity Cases in the Internet Age By David T. Cox - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources on law enforcement applications of the Tanner Scale 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Genital size

message: 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)
thread_title: To simplified?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page needs to be edited to be inclusive to transgender people. It is a page that is of special interest to us and the diction needs work. 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Penis size 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Physiological accuracy in male Tanner scale diagram: circumcised vs. uncircumcised penis in diagram 

message: 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)
replies: text: , I assume you're talking about deletions like this one  . 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: , 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for the answer. I will upload some as soon as possible. --Aréat (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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 : . Cordially. --Aréat (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: , 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Line drawing

message: 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)
thread_title:  UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 6C goals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Exactly. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Child penis