Talk:Puberty/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

older entries

I think we should include the ages puberty usually starts and ends. It might help some people if they are wondering if they are going through it or not.

removed from page:Do animals go through puberty too?

the pedia is really showing its age. There is almost nothing on the site about human development, esp. human sexual development

Do we really need a conclusion in this article

This isn't a science fair project, I dont think a conclusion is needed. TaylorLTD 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Full Pubic Hair At Birth

  • You mentioned in your article about girls reaching the pubic stage starting at 9 and so forth. I was born with this problems all of my life. When I came from my mother's womb, I had hair and it never shed off. Life was terrible for me and I never had counceling. Completely, ashamned of myself. however it does not matter bacause every body gets hair on there ass, vegina they have sex TO GET I BABY. it only takes one second. I thought that I was wrong and some strange was wrong with me. I recognized this at the age of 3. Yes, at the age of three. I am 47 now and I did not have a happy life at all, being raped, because men thought that I had a mature body, but my mind was not developed at all. The only answer that I received was that the doctors said tht it will shed off but it never did. I had to grow up all my life with the condition. Please for my sake go back and update your research, because I am one that start pubic at birth. thanks a million
My sympathy for your difficulties. I am rewriting the article and will try to address the issues of early and abnormal hair development. Alteripse 23:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Based on what? This person's claims? Unless she has some sort of evidence to support the claim that she was born with pubic hair, that note stays off the article.

The following is the text replaced by the new article. The following contains some errors and imprecisions. ??????????????? why write this? go to medical sight and that should help 71.104.239.196 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

==This is the old version, which I will delete after finishing the above waiting for comments.== I rewrote it because much of the following is either imprecise, awkwardly expressed, or incomplete, and there are quite a few errors. I am aware that the rewrite is "written at a higher reading level" and I welcome feedback about whether it is too hard to understand.

Puberty refers to the period of sexual maturation in humans. Puberty is when the child experiences physical, hormonal, and sexual changes and becomes capable of reproduction. It is associated with rapid growth and the appearance of secondary sexual characteristics.

Adolescence is the period of transition between puberty and adulthood.

When I cum the only thing that comes out is pee and also it feels like there is something attached to my left ball, is this normal for a boy in puberty? Also when I watch porn or something it seems like I cum all over my leg but I don't feel it coming out. - Thanks Ryan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.212.231 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

When a healthy child is somewhere between nine and 16 years old, he or she will enter puberty. The exact age depends on factors such as heredity and nutrition and whether the child is a boy or girl. On average, boys enter puberty 2 years later than girls. At this time, the pituitary and hypothalamus glands in the brain (endocrine glands) begin sending out new hormones that trigger the changes of puberty.

Both boys and girls usually experience sudden gains in height and weight. The hormones will regulate and help determine the person's body build (whether the person tends to be tall or short, thin or heavy, and so on).

The hormones also cause secondary sex characteristics and interest in sex. In girls, the ovaries begin to increase production of estrogen and other "female" hormones. In boys, the testicles increase production of testosterone.

The sweat glands become more active. The sweat produced has a slightly different content than when the child was small (it begins to develop more of an odor). Oil glands become more active, and acne may appear.

At this time the importance of personal hygiene becomes apparent and it is important for boys and girls who are beginning to mature to pay attention to regular bathing and other aspects of hygiene. The adolescent may find that an underarm deodorant or antiperspirant becomes necessary.

Puberty in girls

Puberty usually occurs in girls between 9 and 16 years old. The start of menstrual periods (menarche) is one of the most visible signs that a girl is entering puberty.Before having the first menstrual period, the pubescent girl will normally experience:

  • rapid growth, especially an increase in height
  • breast enlargement
  • pubic, armpit, and leg hair growth
  • clear or whitish vaginal secretions
  • increased hip width
  • Attainment of a sufficient body mass (typically 17% body fat).(look up menarche for more information and source)

The ovaries increase their production of estrogen and other hormones. This begins the monthly menstrual cycle. Having menstrual periods is only one part of this cycle. Girls are born with a place for babies to grow (the uterus). Next to the uterus are two small glands (the ovaries). The ovaries produce the female hormones and begin to release eggs, which have been stored in the ovaries since birth.

Every month (approximately), an ovary releases one egg. This egg travels along the Fallopian tube, which connects the ovary to the uterus. In about 3 or 4 days the ovum reaches the uterus. During this time, the lining of the uterus (endometrium) begins to thicken by filling with blood and fluid. This happens so that if the ovum is fertilized, it can grow in this thickened lining to produce a baby.

The ovum can become fertilized if unprotected sexual intercourse occurs during this "fertile" time. When a sperm cell (from the man) and an egg (from the woman) join, a pregnancy occurs.

If the egg is not fertilized, it dissolves and the endometrium drains off, out of the uterus through the vagina, causing a menstrual period. In between the menstrual periods, there may be a clear or whitish vaginal discharge. This is normal.

Menstrual cycles occur over about one month (28 to 35 days). At first, the menstrual periods typically are irregular. The girl may go two months between periods, or may have 2 periods in one month. Over time, these will become more regular. The girl may want to keep track of when she has a menstrual period, and how long the period lasts, on a calendar. This can help her to see what her individual pattern is, and can help her predict when she will have the next menstrual period.

Generally, the different phases of the menstrual cycle are not uncomfortable and the majority of girls will not notice any problems. Cramping, when present, is usually mild. Severe menstrual cramping should be evaluated by a physician. There may, however, be other cyclic changes -- for example, just before or during a menstrual period the girl may feel "moody" or emotional, and may feel puffy or swollen. PMS (premenstrual syndrome) may begin to develop, especially as the girl gets older.

In girls, maturation is usually complete by age 17. Subsequently, any increases in height beyond this age are uncommon. Although full physical maturity has been reached educational and emotional maturity remain ongoing processes. It is important to remember that fertility (often present as early as 12 years of age) precedes emotional maturity and pregnancy can, and often does, occur before an adolescent is equipped for parenthood.

Girls voices (a bit) change too!!

A girl's voice probably will not crack and squeak like a boy's voice does during puberty, but her voice will change. During puberty, her voice will become fuller, richer, and little deeper. Estrogen causes her larynx (LAIR-inks) or voice box to grow and her vocal cords to become longer and thicker. Once her vocal cords are finished growing, she will have a strong, rich, and full adult voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramore62645 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Puberty in boys

Puberty usually occurs in boys between 11 and 13 years old. It is believed that extreme climates will adjust the typical age by up to 2 years. On an average, extreme cold weather delays puberty and extreme heat accelerates the onset. Unlike girls, there is no clearcut sign that tells a boy that he has entered puberty. However, boys will normally experience:

The five stages in the sexual development of boys

  1. Stage one is characterized by downy pubic hair that is similar to the hair found on the abdomen.
  2. Stage two involves enlargement of the scrotum and testes. The enlargement of the scrotum is accompanied by reddening and folding of the skin. The first sparse pubic hair becomes apparent.
  3. Stage three involves enlargement of the penis. A majority of this development occurs in the length of the penis, although there may be small changes in the diameter of the shaft. Further enlargement and development of the scrotum and testis takes place and pubic hair thickens. Other changes involving the pubic hair include curling and coarsening in texture.
  4. These changes continue throughout the fourth stage accompanied by enlargement of the penile glans with thickening of hair in the pubic area.
  5. Stage five is the completion of sexual maturation. The penis, scrotum and testis are fully matured and are adult-sized. Pubic hair fills the pubic area and extends onto the surface of the thighs and up the abdomen. Increased body hair, voice changes and other physical changes are called the secondary sex characteristics of puberty. They are the consequence of changing hormone levels in the male body.

The testes constantly manufacture sperm. While some sperm can be stored in a structure called the epididymis, the stored sperm must be occasionally released as part of the normal process to make room for new sperm. This can occur automatically during sleep (known as a nocturnal emission or "wet dream") or following masturbation or sexual intercourse. Nocturnal emissions may be a common concern for young men entering puberty but they should be reassured that is a normal part of maturation.


In response to above comment about need for more on human development, I am contributing this. I started to revise the article, but got more dissatisfied and ended up rewriting it entirely.Alteripse 04:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Help on pubic hair

I could see a nice article here. Kudos to the contributors. Perhaps you people could help the pubic hair article? --Rrjanbiah 06:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. May I ask what your subjunctive could means? You have a thought on how to make the article better? "We people" will take a look at the pubic hair article. Alteripse 11:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on pubic hair article. English is not my native language and so please don't mind if "could" means something else. --Rrjanbiah 13:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You are quite welcome. Language lesson offered kindly:
You wrote "I could see a nice article here." "could see" is subjunctive mood, which is usually used as the first part of a conditional sentence, such as "I could see a nice article, if it had a picture."

The indicative mood would have been "I see a nice article." as a simple statement of present fact.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I can't even imagine attempting to write encyclopedia articles in another language. Thanks again for the compliment. Alteripse 15:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the lesson on "could". Hereafter I'll try to use it in right way. Thanks again. --Rrjanbiah 04:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Table and notations

It would be nice if there is explanations for the notations in the table say B2, PH4, etc. --Rrjanbiah 04:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Done. While the Tanner stages are described in the text, it would be even better if someone with artistic skills or internet foraging skills could find a set of pictures illustrating the stages. Or even perhaps a slender artistically done text box inserted along the right margin at the point of the article where Tanner stages are introduced. Alteripse 10:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Very nice work! Let the world be benefitted more out of your work. I think, it is worth to mention that y--years and m--months --Rrjanbiah 11:55, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The penis continues to grow until about 18 years of age, reaching an average adult size of about 12-14 cm." --I feel sorry for the person who wrote this.

What age does puberty usually start with boys? this isn't cleared up anywhere I can see.

That's because it was accidentally omitted. Thanks and look again. alteripse 01:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The article contains information about puberty of the average "African-American." Why must the person be American? 12.178.137.231 01:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because somebody took the trouble of surveying those girls for timing. Realistically, the survey was prompted by the longstanding recognition in US pediatric endocrine clinics that there were disproportionately plenty of African American girls with mildly early puberty but very low rates of pathologic causes. Surveys confirmed the impression to be sure it wasn't a matter of ascertainment bias or perception. While it might be related to a biological difference in partly African ancestry, it seems to most of us more likelty to be a particular contingent result of different environmental factors in North America (e.g., slightly larger body mass or many other things that cannot be casually tossed out without extensive explanation). I have no idea whether there are any good surveys of timing for girls in Africa with less European ancestry, but there are so many potential environmental and social differences that I would not be willing to assume they would be similar. alteripse 03:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Penile Length

Do the Given Penile Lengths (average 6cm prepubertual and 12-14cm postpubertual) refer to the erect or the flacid state. I couldn't see that mentioned anywhere in the article.

Think. These are children surveyed by doctors. alteripse 11:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that is a sufficient response. The article should clearly state whether it is referring to flaccid or erect penises - and the information could have been gathered in ways other than direct observation. Also, I find it difficult to believe that a 14 cm flaccid penis is "average."

Sorry you don't have sufficient imagination to understand why doctors haven't surveyed erect penis size in hundreds of children. I don't have sufficient imagination to think of a socially acceptable way that doctors could do a survey of size of erect penises of children. alteripse 09:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why they should develop an instrument to measure penile length. The doctor measures the flacid penis and then tell the boy to go to the bathroom like they're going to pee in a cup, get a hard-on, and measure it. Of course, there is always going to be the kid with the big ego and he is going to lie about how big his penis is, so a ruler would not be a sufficient tool. Something that would record the length electronically would be a really helpful tool. Just my opinion. A Word Of Advice From A Beast: Don't Be Silly, Wrap Your Willy! 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is quite a valid question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukhoi.pakfa (talk • contribs) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

swiss reference

I removed the following recent addition for clarification. The mean duration of penis growth to its final size is 1.8 +/- 0.7 years. Mean duration of testicular growth is 3.5 +/- 1.0 years, and 2.7 +/- 1.0 years for pubic hair development. (Largo, 1983) I do not have ready access to this reference. I am not intending to "dis the Swiss", but I suspect the reference actually does not say what has been inserted: that pubertal growth of penis and testes occurs in only two years. That would contradict other published sources, such as Schonfeld's penile growth curve, as well as much clinical observation. Although Schonfeld published in 1947 and is even harder to track down than a 1983 volume of Helv Paed Act, his curves have been republished in each edition of Smith's Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation, which is available in every medical school library, most hospital libraries, all children's hospital libraries, and most medical bookstores if you want to have a look. I am not doubting the "Father of the Beads" as much as the paraphrase of the data inserted by our anonymous contributor. Is the anonymous contributor willing to quote the relevant parts of the article for us? Thanks. alteripse 11:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are new here but is considered rude in the extreme to re-revert without responding when an editor asks for information, and it goes doubly for anonymous contributors without accounts. Please make account and have the civility to back up your assertions. alteripse 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Declining age of puberty

This is one of the better wikipedia articles I have stumbled on -- good work, everyone! But, I would like to see more pointed discussion of reported recent declining age of start of puberty, in the US, over the last decade or so -- rate of decline if any, suspected cause, etc. In the meantime, the table titles should be changed. "Recent" should be changed to actual dates. Data from 10 or 20 years ago is only "recent" from some points of view! 69.87.193.72 22:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the right place to mention it but a citation on a Health & Human Services website for girls that onset of puberty for girls can be at ages 6 or 7 really freaked me out. Is this true? Some girls -- any girls -- are starting puberty that young?!? I couldn't figure out where they're getting their data from or if it's just a really bad case of government misinformation. The article is here http://www.girlshealth.gov/body/puberty/index.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.82.81 (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It is true. It's called precocious puberty. But with the rate that girls are achieving puberty at earlier ages as decades pass, it will likely one day be thought of as normal. Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
See the essay on this subject, citing several pertinent academic studies:

Diana Zuckerman, "When Little Girls Become Women: Early Onset of Puberty in Girls" ["This article appeared in The Ribbon, a newsletter of the Cornell University Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors in New York States (BCERF), Vol 6, No. 1, Winter 2001."] http://www.center4research.org/children11.html Dogru144 (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Growth Potential

If a male has been overweight and relatively sedentary during the age of onset of puberty and throughout, would this significantly reduce the likelihood of him reaching his full adult size and appearance and sexual maturation? I have read that being obese can trigger early puberty in females and delayed puberty and stunted growth in males. Could growth be completed in the later years (20's) if the individual decreased body fat and increased exercise and muscle mass (naturally of course)? In short, could you fill in the gaps? My impression of delayed puberty is that there have been unused "spaces" left in the form of unactivated growth cells.

Well i can say this much, I have been roughly 20-40 pounds over weight since like age 10. I am now 6feet and 2-3 inches tall(still doing little growing), so atleast in my isolated case, this does not hold true(and yes, i am male).166.128.120.222 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurological development in late adolescence

August's Scientific American included an article on recent studies of neurological development in late adolescence. Do people think that a paragraph on these finding would be appropriate to this article? It's stuff that happens well after development of secondary sexual characteristics (from mid teens all the way into the early twenties) but it is part of the physical transition into full adulthood.

Would it fit here? And if not here, then what would be the right article for it?

DanB†DanD 05:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alterprise's fabricated/misrepresented information in the section: "Average Timing for American Children"

Dear Readers/Editors: After looking at tables 2a and 2b in this section, I suspected the data may have been tampered with, fabricated, or misrepresented (given my educational background and knowledge). I therefore went through the trouble of locating the full text of the referenced study for tables 2a and 2b, "Secondary sexual characteristics and menses in young girls seen in office practice: a study from the pediatric research in office settings network." Pediatrics, 1997; 99:501-12, (Herman-Giddens ME, et al.).

After reading the full text of this study, I've verified that some of the data was fabricated or misrepresented by user Alteprise. He added this information on May 1, 2004, as you can see at the following history page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puberty&diff=3409988&oldid=3409624 If you scroll down and look at the text with the green background on the right half of the screen, you can see where user Alterprise initially inserted this information. He has since edited this and other sections of the article countless times, while preserving this information.

Alterprise clearly got his data from the above study that he referenced, as some of the data on the table matches the data from the study. (Tables 2a and 2b in the article provide statistical data on the timing of puberty in girls from a 1997 study.) I left the correct information from the tables in tact. However, this study only evaluated sexual maturation in girls aged 3 to 12, and only made observations on mean age of menarche, and Tanner stages 2 and 3 for pubic hair (PH2, PH3) and breast development(B2, B3). No observations were made for Tanner stages 4 and 5 (PH4, PH5, B4, B5). No girls 13 and over were evaluated for this study. However, Alterprise misrepresented the data from this study by fabricating additional data that he included for the values for PH4, PH5, B4, & B5. He also apparently fabricated the data for some of the 3rd percentile and 97th percentile columns. The authors never explicitly calculate these percentiles for 'all' of these parameters, and when I used statistical methods to roughly approximate a few of these values, they didn't match what Alterprise put down for them. (It's not even possible to estimate a couple of these (like the Tanner stage 3 values) given the lack of data for girls 13+.) People who want access to the full study for proof can contact me.

This entire article lacks proper citations and references, and really is to some extent plagiarized and/or fabricated as I've just demonstrated.

Unfortunately, over the last couple of years, user 'Alteprise' has more or less taken over the whole article and played master of it, and the article is now a product of his personal opinion and biases and whatever bizarre personal motives he has rather than a product of a fair, objective, collobarative effort by informed writers. Danrz 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Danrz (Note: I struck the preceding paragraph because, (after review of the policy), Wikipedia policy asks that users not make comments on an editor's character, even when true, regardless of what the editor may have done wrong. The policy however does not prohibit comment on the editor's actions. Thus, I am forced to strike out the preceding words. Danrz 13:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I confess. I spent several whole days back in 2004 laboriously rewriting this whole article to display my biases, personal opinions, and fabrications and undoubtedly I plagiarized it as well. Furthermore, I have protected it from nearly daily vandalism for over 2 years just to preserve my fabrications and biases. So let's restore it to its condition before I ruined it, and let Danrz show us how to do it properly, so it will resemble all the other fair, objective, collaborative, and well-cited articles he/she has already contributed here. And a special thanks to him/her for exposing my mideeds with both WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF. I am so ashamed. Go ahead, Danrz, give us something better. alteripse 03:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the article. Of course such accusations are out of place. Reading through, it does look as if the citations ought to be replaced with the standard Wikipedia <ref> format. At the moment it's difficult to tell exactly what is drawn from which sources. DanB†DanD 04:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The abstract for the above study is available for viewing by visiting PubMed. In the search box, input the following number to access the abstract: 9093289 . Although the abstract does not give all the information that would be listed in the tables, it does clearly state that "practitioners rated the level of sexual maturation on girls 3 through 12 years who were undergoing complete physical examinations." Thus, it's clearly evident from the abstract alone that some of the values are false in these tables, as only girls 3 through 12 were even involved in the study. The full text that I've studied in detail makes it clear that this study only evaluated sexual maturation in girls aged 3 to 12, and only made observations on mean age of menarche, and Tanner stages 2 and 3 for pubic hair (PH2, PH3) and breast development(B2, B3). No observations were made for Tanner stages 4 and 5 (PH4, PH5, B4, B5), nor were values for most of the 3rd and 97th percentile columns calculated. Thus, there was no evaluation of PH4, PH5, B4, B5 in this study, yet values were included for these on Table 2a of this Puberty page, and the data for this table was cited as being from this study by the same user who included the data. And because the values for B2, B3, PH2, PH3, and average age of menarche on the Puberty page for tables 2a and 2b clearly match the values given in the full text of this study as of the time I caught this click here for the status of the Puberty page when I caught this and look at table 2a and 2b, it's proven that this is where this data came from. Thus, false data was combined with genuine data from this study and presented together, and this study was cited for it. Although Wikipedia policy requests that editors assume good faith in evaluating the actions of other editors WP:AGF, the policy clearly states in letters that "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." In this case, the evidence is overwhelming to the point that a violation has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People wanting to know how they can get the full text of this study can contact me. I have issued a stern warning to Alteprise regarding this matter as recommended per WikiPedia policy. You may view this warning by clicking the following link: Click here. Danrz 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Danrz, I am partly grateful but mystified and a bit appalled at your behavior. First, you discovered some misattributed data in a table added to this article. For anyone who is curious, some of the data Danrz removed did not come from the Herman-Giddens article as it appeared I claimed. Much of the material I rewrote this article with was a revision of a handout I had prepared about 7 or 8 years ago for resident education. When I added it here I forgot the data came from a combination of sources. I do not have ready access to the original source for the stage 4&5 data but it should not have been mixed with the H-G data without a clearer explanation and citation of both sources-- my mistake. However, as must have been apparent to you, the 3rd and 97th percentiles for stages 2 & 3 were simply calculated from their standard deviations provided by H-G. The data were not "fabricated" but unsourced, but I won't object to removal pending identification of the source. What mystifies me is why instead of simply asking for the source of the data, you have accused me of vandalism, plagiarism, bizarre motives, sockpuppetry, personal opinion and biases, and prevention of collaborative editing? As your username is new, I suspect you have taken great offense to some action of mine elsewhere. Care to enlighten? If this is simply your normal response to discovery of unsourced data and not an expression of personal animosity, it would suggest a very unhappy inability to engage in civil academic or intellectual exchanges. You have my sympathy, though mixed with revulsion. alteripse 15:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


  • Oh, please. LOL!

Just for funsies, let's assume that a true scholar, someday, did combine the raw data from this study with another study evaluating timing of puberty in girls, rather than comparing the results from each study as everyone else would do. It would be completely inappropriate and nonsensical; and I might note that you said you did this as a revision of a "resident handout". This study is rare in that it only evaluated girls up to 12. A person would have to find another very rare study that started with girls 13+ around the same time period, otherwise this person would be chopping off the data for the girls under 13 in the second study to add the data for the study referenced here, or blend that data somehow. The data for girls under 13 obviously couldn't have been blended with data from another study in this case, because the values in the table match exactly the numbers in the study referenced here for girls through age 12. And even if this incredibly unlikely combo of two complementary studies was found, it still wouldn't make any sense and would be entirely inappropriate, especially since nowadays there are always fairly recent studies that will evaluate from beginning of puberty to end stage. In your own words, "However, a later survey performed in the mid-1990s by a group of American primary pediatric practices with slightly different methods reported both a mildly earlier average onset, greater range, and more importantly, a significant difference between white and African-American girls in the early stages (Table 2) (Herman-Giddens et al.)." And then on top of all that, after a scholar performed such an unusual integration of raw data from two separate sources for a revision for a "resident handout", he would have to forget that he had done so several years later. And even if it is the case that the numbers for stages 4 and 5 came from another study (it really does not matter), the evidence still overwhelmingly suggests this was not an accident, and it would still be deliberate misrepresentation of data and vandalism; i.e. whether you deliberately published and combined data from two different studies to give a false impression, or simply made up the rest of the numbers, it makes no difference. And actually, if the other numbers really did come from a different study, in a way it would make it worse because then you would be misprepresenting data from TWO studies instead of just ONE, and not mentioning the second one at all. Also funny how you had access to the actual numbers as printed on this "revision of a handout for resident education", but this important document was also apparently mistakingly lacking proper citations, else you would had no trouble copying a simple table and a couple of references here.

BTW, I just added a warning to your Talk Page (as recommended by policy) for failing to properly cite many sources for this page, and failing to give credit to sources for approximately 30 other published articles where you were either the major/primary writer or a substantial contributor, many of these published articles not mentioning any references whatsoever, let alone properly citing particular points of knowledge within the articles with footnotes or other suitable notation (as would be expected from an educated scholar who undoubtedly would have been taught in college and graduate school that one may not publish information to the world without giving credit where credit is due, and that a violation of this is extremely serious.)

And then after you publish over 30 articles to one of the most popular sources of encyclopedic information in the entire world without properly citing sources as a major or main contributor to these articles, I guess I'm expected to "assume good faith" and accept your outlandish, non-sensical, fantastical story above about this article on Puberty and how you simply mixed up the sources for this article by accident, when you have well over 30 other articles where you failed to properly cite sources (or even list any reference at all). Danrz 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is eating you? Many, if not most, WP articles were written unsourced and many are still that way. You can go from article to article providing "stern warnings" to the contributors to provide sources, but it appears to be only mine that offend you. You could be constructive and improve them by providing better sources, but I doubt that interests you either. Notice that I have not reverted or argued for keeping the unsourced data, and in fact after you pointed it out I reverted the entire article to its state before I rewrote it. Although that version was even less sourced, restore it if you prefer it. I will again point out that your self-righteous complaints on behalf of the project here would seem far more sincere if you actually contributed some material to some articles. Or maybe your best service will be to go through the articles I wrote with a fine-toothed comb in hope of finding another error. Believe it or not, that would be ok with me. alteripse 01:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC) PS: Won't you at least tell us what I caught you doing that was so indefensible that you couldn't persuade people to back you up?
  • This was not an "error" that I caught, it was vandalism via incorporation of falsified data. And I went through nothing with a fine tooth comb. I looked at the tables and became suspicious when I saw the numbers, both of the accuracy of the numbers and the intentions of whoever included the numbers. So then I went through the trouble of locating said study, and sure enough, the data was falsified. Then I checked your other contributions where you were the primary author or a major contributor and found that for well over 30 published articles, not only did you not properly cite points of knowledge within your writings, you often listed no references at all. And you repeatedly imply that you have a formal education on Wikipedia, which if true would mean that you know how very serious it is to publish articles without proper citations and giving credit where credit is due, and you would have been taught how to do this and would have cited sources as you wrote the words. And then you have the audacity to use the argument that lots of others do it on here, too. Not only that, the histories for some of these pages reveal that you seem to routinely prevent others from making substantial changes to these articles that may contradict what you've written, or making changes to your unreferenced and often questionable writings and claims. And all of this is all the more appalling after I just learned yesterday that you are an administrator. Danrz 20:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Is that it? I "prevented a substantial change" of yours to this or some other article? Tell me what it was and I will explain what was wrong with it. Maybe we can make it useful if it wasn't actually erroneous. alteripse 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What can stop breast development?

What all can affect body in such a way that brests don't start developing at all when they should be, or stop developing all of the sudden - directly caused by such influence. (I guess e.g. malnutrition and stress can be among causes of such problem/disorder ? ) What science and medical expirience tell about this issue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.116.148.6 (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

There is a difference between delayed puberty, interruption of puberty (when breasts that were normally developing stop doing so), and hypomastia or amastia (birth defects of breast tissue such that the breasts never develop or are extremely small even after several years of normal estrogen levels. A pediatric endocrinologist can tell you the difference. alteripse 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
You've mentioned interruption of puberty. Is interruption of puberty a regular occurance, or not? Anyhow - what are the reasons/causes for it?
I don't know what you mean by "regular occurrence". Common? Commonly seen by pediatric endocrinologists? Normal? Occurs at predictable intervals? Yes, yes, no, no, respectively. Lots of causes, including wt loss, anorexia, systemic disease, etc etc. alteripse 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
When I asked the question it was more in a sense of relation to some kind of hormonal disorder (geneticaly inherited or acquired) or stress. So, the question was regarding that specifically. You've suggested some DIFFERENT *cases* (delayed puberty, interruption of puberty, hypomastia and amastia). It SEEMED to me (in range of those options) that I was in fact asking about interruption of puberty. By "regular occurance" I've meant that the problem you mentioned (you've said "inerruption of puberty") happens but can dissapear latter on, so it doesn't necessarily has to be a more serious problem, but rather a temporary disorder that happens to a lot of persons and is commonly seen. You've answered that it is not a normal occurance, but I asked if stress can cause it (I guess it's bound to be a hormonal disorder, but - then - the question is if some kind of stress can cause such hormonal disorder).
I have a friend (male friend, he's 21 now) that had a very stressful expirience in youth - he never grew beird (facial hair) - I don't know if those two are related, but if those are related, then I ask here if similar puberty related interruption is possible with females - resulting in stopping of breast development (we're discussing puberty here, right?).
I apologize but I don't think we can go further with this for two reasons. First, you've lost me; I don't think I understand what you know and don't know, and suspect we are using some basic words differently (e.g., delayed puberty is not a disease; specific types of interruption may or may not be temporary, may require intervention for the process to resume, may or may not be non-pathological, and may or may not be common). Face to face we could clarify, but if you don't follow my simple answers, the more complicated ones won't make sense to you. Second, I cannot give medical advice about specific persons. I have told you what kind of specialist is most knowledgeable about variations of normal and abnormal pubertal development in both males and females. That might be the best source of answers for your questions about individuals. Sorry. alteripse 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's OK. Thanks for your attention.

Images/diagrams

This article could really use some more images than the sole one of the boy with gynecomastia. - Iotha 07:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Its likely that that individual doesn't have gynecomastia - he's probably just obese. The fact he seems to have breasts won't stem from the affliction, but are simply fat deposits. A better picture could probably be found Stuart McN 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

honestly i think there are tons of images that could be added than that one picture, maybe a diagram of those sex ed books or a hot teen, maybe a bit jailbaitish? 200.83.92.102 19:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

is a real picture of an adolescent boy and girl out of the question? a real picture would pretty much sum up the whole article. remember child porn has to have he person performing a sexual act or have the picture focusing on the genitals or breasts.

OR you could just get two pictures - Drawn out diagrams, one depicting the male puberty and the other one the female puberty. These diagrams usually show about five drawings, each of a step in puberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.150.137 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, where are you going to get a girl of age around 12-14 to show her breasts to wikipedia, and a boy of 14 to show his penis to the world, Im 14 and I wouldn't do that, so why would other people do taht

The effect(s) of fat and diet on body hair

Does anyone know if there being obese or overweight and dieting badly increases body hair growth or causes for advanced body hair growth or is the growth of body hair during puberty purely genetical? I would like to clear that up if possible. Jotsko 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Both premature adrenarche and polycystic ovary syndrome are more common in overweight people. alteripse 20:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

possible fact dispute about cause of diffs in adult ht

JSchmidt, I lost your fact dispute when I restored the original text order, but I still would like to settle it. You placed fact dispute in the sentence about estradiol being the reason for the adult ht diff between males and females. Abbassi's paper doesnt disagree with any of that. What did you think it disputed? alteripse 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not really trying to dispute something. The article I mentioned says, "The difference in the age at the onset of puberty, which provides boys with two additional years of prepubertal growth, accounts for the greater final height of boys (by 10 to 12 cm)." Wikipedia says, "Compared to girls' early growth spurt, growth accelerates more slowly in boys and lasts longer, resulting in a taller adult stature among males than females (on average about 10 cm or 4 inches). The difference is attributed to the much greater potency of estradiol compared to testosterone in promoting bone growth, maturation, and epiphyseal closure." I requested a citation for "The difference is attributed". My understanding is that estrogen plays essentially the same role in limiting bone growth in both males and females. For example, see Inhibition of Estrogen Biosynthesis with a Potent Aromatase Inhibitor Increases Predicted Adult Height in Boys with Idiopathic Short Stature: A Randomized Controlled Trial. --JWSchmidt 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It does play exactly the same role. Because estradiol rises faster and reaches higher levels sooner in girls (on average) than boys, girls stop growing about 12 cm before boys do. I still don't see a disagreement between what Abassi's paper and the article say, but I can certainly make the article clearer. alteripse 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you are now "attributing the difference" to the fact that estrogen levels in girls rise sooner to levels that influence bone growth. However you want to describe it, there should be a citation to a source that discusses the causes of the lesser average height of women. I think this article should use numbered references. --JWSchmidt 03:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am still not understanding your point or your question. It is the rise of estradiol with both male and female puberty that accelerates growth, matures the bones, closes the epiphyses, and concludes limb growth. At age 9 boys and girls are about the same heights, but girls start making estradiol earlier, make more of it and hence reach adult height sooner at a shorter height. This difference in timing and amount of estradiol accounts for nearly all of the average height difference between men and women. Isn't that exactly what the paragraph says? How can we make it clearer?
As far as referencing, of course it would benefit from references. Feel free. I am slowly getting around to adding references to some of the larger articles I have contributed. However, I have to confess that I have little respect for editors (not necessarily you) who won't write articles and won't take the trouble to contribute references themselves but feel that putting "citation needed" tags in basic, uncontroversial articles somehow improves wikipedia. alteripse 11:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
We have clearly established that you do not see a problem with this statement: "The difference is attributed to the much greater potency of estradiol compared to testosterone in promoting bone growth, maturation, and epiphyseal closure." In my view, the statement is a misleading statement and I doubt that good sources can be found and cited to support it. We agree that estradiol is more potent than testosterone as a regulator of bone growth. We agree that on average men are taller than women. I do not agree that the fact that men tend to be taller than women should be attributed to the fact that estradiol is more potent; in my view, that is a misleading over-simplification. You seem to have adopted the position that since you agree with the statement there is no need to cite sources to support the statement. You are free to adopt that attitude, but doing so does not help improve Wikipedia. If there really were a good source to be cited in support of this statement you probably could have found it by now using the time that you have spent defending the statement. Use of {{fact}} is a valid way to try to improve Wikipedia. Please leave the {{fact}} tag in place until someone cites sources to support the statement. --JWSchmidt 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it sounded like I was objecting more than I was trying to understand, and I have no problem leaving it until I find a citation. My general citation tag complaint was unwarranted here, especially in regard to a specific question. I think what confused me is that Val's paper is a completely reliable source but does not deal with the hormonal mechanism for the adult height difference between the sexes, so I wasn't sure what fact you thought needed supporting and your initial wording sounded like you thought it disputed something. Sorry if I am being slow, but the following are true:

  1. Sex differences of the timing and amounts of estradiol really are currently thought to account for nearly all of the adult height differences between the sexes. This is not currently disputed by any authorities but I will find a citation.
  2. The Abassi reference describes the development of the difference but does not address the hormonal mechanism. It is a good reference on the topic and I will find a way to use it.

Have I finally understood your point? Check back later today. alteripse 10:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sex differences of the timing and amounts of estradiol really are currently thought to account for nearly all of the adult height differences between the sexes" <-- then let's change the article to say that rather than, "The difference is attributed to the much greater potency of estradiol compared to testosterone in promoting bone growth, maturation, and epiphyseal closure"? --JWSchmidt 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

This article has an excellent start—I made quite a few changes, explanation:

  • Have a look at WP:MEDMOS and the TOC and structure of Tourette syndrome for general orientation on medicine articles.
  • WP:DASH for use of hyphens, emdashes, and specifically endashes on page numbers (unfortunately Diberri's ref filler doesn't do that)
  • WP:MSH on the importance of keeping section headings short, not using the word the, and not repeating words in section headings
  • WP:MOSBOLD on the use of bolding and italics.

In general, there was some confusion in the article over how to correctly use named refs, further confused by the fact that book sources need page numbers. The named refs were set up wrong; have a look at how I corrected the cite journal refs to the correct use of named refs (<ref name=namedref/> on second and subsequent occurrences). Those can be used to point one ref towards multiple instances of journal cited papers, which don't require page numbers. However, on books, page numbers must be given for each instance, and that is best handled by separately listing the books as references, and then giving an individual ref with each page number. I put that structure in place. Then, later, if you find that you are using a given page number more than once, you can use a named ref thusly:

  • On the first occurrence:<ref name=Marshall201>Marshall (1986), p. 201</ref>
  • On subsequent occurrences: <ref name=Marshall201/>

Very nice work going on here; drop me a note if you want me to take a look in the future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peripubescence

We really need an origin for this. It's such an unusual word, and we can't give an original definition based on assumptions about etymology, which will very often lead us astray.

In any case, a definition based on literal etymology would yield just "around pubescence" not "around the beginning of pubescence as we have it now - a significant distinction as pubescence occurs over many years.

In general, I think avoiding jargon is best where possible. Dybryd 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken or intended. I agree it is an unusual word. I wouldn't call it jargon, just one that requires an educated knowledge of greek root. I didn't invent the word and I actually included it here in response to another editor's request for an explanation: [1]. I don't think I could give you a cite but if you google "peripubescent" you get lots of hits that confirm my usage. As the word is defined in the context, I don't think it needs anything else. alteripse 22:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you really can't make assumptions based on roots - modern words very often mean something totally different from their roots. And we cannot make up a definition that we don't have a source for - that's OR/POV/all kinds of things.

This nursing study abstract is the closest I have found to a definition - and it is not really sufficient, as from the wording, 8-14 could be a subset, not an equivalent, of the peripubescent population.

I don't know why you mention offense - what could have offended me? Dybryd 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha! By the way, I just noticed the editor who requested the explanation from you before was me! I used to use this account strictly for books and music, and that one for everything else, but now I'm pretty much lumping it all in together. Dybryd 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Okay, I'm going to be putting the NPOV tag back. Reductive biological explanations are not the only (or, in my view, the best-supported) way of looking at human sexual behavior.

The idea that there is a inherent biological tendency for old men to breed with young girls is a very (!) controversial point, and to cite only one perspective is POV, academic source or no. I really don't see why you feel the topic should be included at all - it is not directly relevant to a description of puberty.

However, if you feel it must remain, sourced reference to contrary academic perspectives are a must. There are many authorities who weigh in on this topic: Foucauldians, feminists, the whole crowd. I think it would be silly to reproduce such a debate here, but you have chosen to introduce a single voice from it, and I think it's got to be all or none. Dybryd 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a POV issue!!! In virtually every human culture examined, the most common pair mating is older males and younger females, and I provided 2 of countless references for this. This is simple repeatedly observed fact. What you were correct to point out is that a causal relationship between this mating age difference and puberty age difference is essentially speculative and unprovable. You are correct that many explanations have been offered, and I changed it to make it clear that this possible factor is just as speculative as anything else that has been suggested. This addresses your concern. Half the aggravation of your behavior is that you can't even formulate your arguments and objections correctly. I am happy to educate you, but please get yourself a dictionary, express yourself with accuracy, and have the courtesy to ask on the talk page before removing things from the article. Go re-read what a POV issue is before doing it again. Thank you. alteripse 01:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my poor reading comprehension, for the clumsiness of my writing, and for my rudeness. I'm always trying to improve those things!
It remains POV to include only a single theory, even if it is presented only as a theory. Compare: "Many explanations have been offered for the high dropout rates among African-Americans, including a genetically lower intelligence." When a single controversial theory is the only one described from among many, there is a clear slant.
What I really don't understand is why you think this theory is part of a description of puberty. Dybryd 01:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The point was the following: The age difference in puberty is a striking sex difference and distinctively human. The age difference in marriage in all human societies is similar. The age difference in parentage is similar as well. The last sentence of the paragraph ties the age difference to the other age differences that the reader is likely familiar with, and subjunctively suggests the earlier puberty may be related. That is all the sentence said. Because the whole section is about the age difference of puberty, not the age difference of marriage, it is not necessary, or appropriate, nor an improvement to the article, to list a hundred alternative speculations about other factors that might contribute to the age difference of marriage. But I should not have lost my temper. This is not that important to me. Do whatever you want with the article. I am sure you will make it better. alteripse 02:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remove the sentence. I agree that it's not appropriate to list any speculations at all. Dybryd 02:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Female body hair

I can't edit the article but, I'm surprised that the article doesn't mention female body hair growth during puberty! 156.34.212.99 23:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it used to be there and was lost during a rearrangement, but it is back now. alteripse 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Order

My edit to have Physical changes in boys ordered first on the article then Physical changes in girls was reverted and I reverted this revert because I feel the order which I changed it to is the most appropriate non-biased order. To have Physical changes in girls ordered first then Physical changes in boys is obviously a biased favour for having girls ordered before boys contrary to the standard English language order of he and she rather than she and he. I remind editors that Wikipedia has a NPOV rule and articles must be written in a standard language neutral manner, which following the standard English language he and she manner is. Signsolid 21:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave the article alone. Girls develop earlier than boys and the order was chosen deliberately. Write something useful yourself rather than reverting those of us who contribute real text. alteripse 22:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Firstly and most importantly I edited this article to present Physical changes in boys before Physical changes in girls so that this article is written with the simple common English language practice to write he/she rather than she/he and so does not represent a bias in favour of either gender. Ordering the article to present Physical changes in girls displayed before Physical changes in boys has clearly purposefully been changed from the standard English language practice of he/she to express a pro-female point of view onto the article otherwise someone would not have consciously had to change this standard English language practice of he/she rather than she/he, which is used in almost all English language text, unless it wishes to express a point of view, which is not allowed here on Wikipedia NPOV.
Also:
(1) How dare you say that I may or may not make any edits to this article. Since when did you posses sole ownership over this article?
(2) The fact that girls on average enter into puberty slightly earlier than boys is no reason for ordering the article in such a way and is a pathetic excuse to order the article to your feminist bias. As for a decision being taken for the article to be ordered that way I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't unilaterally decided by you considering when you read this talk page and view this article’s history.
(3) As for contributing real text it seems you have a mind set that this article is yours and yours alone and woe be tried anyone who should touch it. The fact that I should merely change order which something was presented should draw such an angry response from you only goes to prove this point.
(4) Finally how dare you leave the edit comment WP:DICK in the edit summary. This only proves your hostility towards other editors who should dare to edit "your" article and complete and utter disrespect for all other users of Wikipedia.
For these reasons I feel no alternative that should my genuine edit to this article be unfairly undone yet again but to have to report the account User:Alteripse to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard due to the hostility and disrespect expressed towards other users of Wikipedia and a clear, constant, and unrepentant breeching of ‘No point of view’ rules, which this user themselves admitted their edits were of their own point of view of “Girls develop earlier than boys and the order was chosen deliberately”.
I remind the user User:Alteripse that I am a long term user of Wikipedia who has never came into conflict ever before (which my contribution history and talk page clearly show) and regret to have now have had to come into a dispute with another editor but will not allow myself to be refused from editing articles and being spoken to and treated in a hostile and disrespectful manner.
Also sadly it is obvious from this talk page, the article’s history [[2]], and your account’s history that conflict and domination over articles is nothing new.
Signsolid 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This Absolutely ridiculous argument and dummy spit only belongs in one place on this site.. I think you all know where that is. - Boochan 10:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have changed it back, girls generally hit puberty before boys, so girls being first seems alright, really I don't see the big deal though. Dureo 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Life was simpler before the Internet... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.129.56 (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to be rephrased better! Here's what I would say instead:

Puberty is the age at which a person becomes physically capable of reproducing offspring, occurring at about fourteen for boys and twelve for girls. What do you think? --167.206.128.33 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats too Generalized. - Boochan 04:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
167.206.128.33 is another abusive sockpuppet of banned User:Jessica Liao. --Fire Star 火星 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fourteen? Most boys begin puberty between 10 and 12 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.9.20 (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

10-12? WHOAH, WHOAH, WHOAH. That is really young and freaks me out that it could happen that early. The beginning of puberty is getting earlier, but i still think it will be quite a while before it is commonplace. --Puggie4276 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with strength spurt

The strength spurt article does not present enough information to stand on its own. As it is a symptom of puberty, it should be merged into this article.

Neelix (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Just redirected. —METS501 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A little wrong

I am not going to change it but in male puberty it says something abotu shemales at the end. You know, the part about breasts. Someone should fix that. 71.179.40.217 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Learn to Read. It's not about that.. - FatM1ke (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now, FatM1ke, you didn't have to be so harsh. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Just Wondering

i havent gone through puberty yet and i heard it really sucks does it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KADcutie44 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh..."sucks" would be if you do not want to become older. I cannot see how it "sucks"...other than raging hormones and the brief addition of mood swings that happens at the beginning of puberty, though the raging hormones part can last past puberty.
That said, Wikipedia is not really the place to discuss this, seeing as its policy is that talk pages should be used for talk on how to improve its articles, not about our personal lives (though discussions on Wikipedia do occasionally drift there). You should ask your parents or other people who have experienced puberty about this. Flyer22 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno but it pretty much sucks if your friends go into puberty and you look like a little kid. Japannjbfan (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unusual order?

I'm just starting to go through puberty(I think), and I think I started with geting hair arround my lips(I just noriced it today). 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

acne info is wrong

Acne is listed as a symptom of puberty, but that is wrong. Acne is caused by inflammation. Changes to skin glands and skin thickness during puberty increase vulnerability to acne, but acne is not directly related to puberty. Antibiotic or other cleansers may help, but do not directly address the underlying cause which is inflammation. Maybe it would make sense to change the reference to mention the characteristics of the skin and not specifically mention acne or supposed cures for the symptoms of acne? -- M0llusk (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? I think we need a source to disprove such a claim. Most people I notice have acne don't get it until middle school (puberty!). I've never seen elementary school kids with it... ★Dasani★ 06:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"acne is not directly related to puberty." For all intents and purposes, it is. It is caused by increasingly oily skin which is caused by puberty, so by the transitive property of me being right pubery causes acne. (too lazy to log in :P)75.80.128.228 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Find a credible source to back up your assertion and add it. Cadwaladr (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Frontal lobe?

Could someone write about the changes in the frontal lobes at the puberty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.255.177.119 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

==i don't edit articles because I don't always get stuff right, but in the Section about males changes this sentence "In girls, the first appearance of pubic hair is termed pubarche." doesn't belong where it is.. someone needs to move it to the girls section 69.242.170.194 (talk) 06:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions to help expansion

A question, or request for additional information.

I have read the whole article and the whole talk page. I looked up this article in hopes of finding detailed info about growth spurts, that is, their timing, their magnitude, how many growth spurts are typical, and so on, and I would like to see more of that. Diagrams and/or graphs would be welcome. Information about the ranges in the amount of growth would be welcome.

There is also an interesting question concerning pubertal growth in girls, which is, what happens to a girl's growth potential if she becomes pregnant during puberty? The folklore is that it would "stunt her growth." Given the role of estrogen in closing the bone ends, there seems to be reason to expect that she would indeed stop growing prematurely, but what are the facts in this context?

Also, re the section of why the age of puberty has decreased, several ideas come to mind. The first is related to nutrition, but specifically to relative levels of obesity. It is not just that the nutrition of young people has improved dramatically since 1840, (the date of the early numbers on the age of menarche). There is also the amount of body fat, which acts to initiate puberty. What happened to body mass index? How thin were they, in 1840?

Related to this, and a great interest to me, is the kind of fat in the typical diet. I wonder when artificial trans-fats (i.e. margarine,) began to contribute significantly to caloric intake? What happened to pubertal onset age in relation to the availability of "fast food," "junk food," and other foods with high margarine content? There should be a great deal of info about these issues, given that fast food outlets came to some communities before others, and margarine consumption would be related to the rationing of butter during WWII.

I also wonder about the contribution of chocolate, with similar questions to those concerning margarine. When did adolescent girls start eating large quantities of chocolate? I hope these questions provoke some writing here. Thank you. --Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent questions, Janice Vian. I don't have the time to tackle any of the stuff you want addressed in this article, but perhaps someone else will at a later date. Whatever you can find on some or all of this, backed up by reliable sources, feel free to add. I will state that this article already seems too long, though, due to all the headings and subheadings. It might be best to find a way to cut down on some of these headings first, so that readers do not feel overwhelmed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you buried your questions in the middle of an early version of the article, as you seem to have confused Flyer. Your questions are straightforward. Both girls and boys have a single pubertal growth spurt. In girls it begins early, coincident with the rise of estradiol, and sometimes even preceding thelarche by a few mos. By 2 years into puberty it is past its peak. The best graphic illustration of this is the growth curves with adolescent variations published by James Tanner in J Ped 1985. The accompanying velocity curves give you an illustration of the range of magnitudes in the american population. Although widely reproduced in ped endo texts they are still copyrighted and not readily available on the internet the last time I searched. Pregnancy is unfortunately not rare in early teens, but is rare while much growth potential remains, because ovulation 101 is a prerequisite, and that usually occurs some mos after menarche. Average remaining ht growth at menarche is about 2-3", and at onset of ovulation is a bit less. There are exceptions, when puberty occurs precociously at a much younger degree of bone maturation. In these cases the high levels of estradiol produced by pregnancy rapidly bring growth to a conclusion and can result in some loss of height potential, as can the use of oral contraceptive pills in a girl who has not finished growth. Improved (or excessive) nutrition is of course the most commonly invoked reason for the earlier onset of puberty these days (academically referred to as the "secular decline in age of puberty"); BMIs are much higher now. However there are much more interesting explanations out there as well-- my recent favorite is a version of the hygiene hypothesis-- that too much washing reduces skin bacteria which alters NO production in the skin which changes some of the internal feedback signals which... and so on. A politically sensitive hypothesis is the dramatic reduction in number of girls living with their biological fathers. And so on... I am not aware that trans fats are thought to have a role different from other fats as calorie sources. Do you have a more specific mechanism in mind? Chocolate is also a unique idea but in this context the relevant consumption would be by preteens, not adolescents. (And PS: if someone hasn't already answered the query on your user page, it is the last line of a traditional child's prayer that begins "Now I lay me down to sleep.."-- seemed once like fairly universal cultural knowledge we were all taught in childhood but our culture is quite different than it once was. I am nothing if not a full service answerer.) alteripse (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In what way do you believe I was confused? I most certainly was not confused about anything Janice Vian stated. I rarely get confused on biological, psychological...and mathematical topics. Changing the topic to the perceived length of this article has nothing to do with confusion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

nubility

A couple of people think the term shouldnt be here because they are apparently unfamiliar with it. Good grief people this is what an encyclopedia is for. All you needed to do was google scholar nubility and you would have found ample academic publications describing it in both physical anthropological and social anthropological contexts, as well as physiologic. There is no other term quite precisely equivalent. It refers to the onset of fertility in a physiological sense and marriageability in a social sense and in many cultures the two coincide. If you cant be bothered to look up unfamiliar terms you are more likely to damage than improve our articles. alteripse (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed it after the IP did because not only was/is it not sourced...we do not have a Wikipedia article titled Nubility (though unlinking the word could have taken care of that). It is not my or any other editor's job to add sources to unsourced statements. Such matters are the responsibility of the people adding the information, per WP:BURDEN. You should also not jump to conclusions about people being confused about something, unless it is clear that they are confused about that something. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This is so wrongheaded it is hard to answer. This has nothing to do with sourcing; it was use of a term in which the meaning was implied by the context but for those you too ignorant to understand and too lazy to look it up, you could have asked for meaning or you could go play in the Simple English Wikipedia. This isn't a matter of sourcing, it is a definition of a concept that was useful in the context. I apparently taught you something you didn't know, and i gather for some people that is hard to handle. Your change did not improve the article; all you did was decide to pick a fight. Not behavior that gets respect no matter what expertise you claim. alteripse (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sigh. The only thing wrong-headed here is how you have behaved toward me and your belief that the statement does not need to be sourced. Well, Wikipedia is against you on that front. If it had been sourced, I highly doubt that it would have been removed by that IP. Clearly, this has everything to do with sourcing. I was not picking a fight, as you claim; I was following normal and accepted Wikipedia editing. If it is so easily sourced, you could have easily sourced it, but you are the one who chose to pick a fight by reverting and then acting as though you are of superior knowledge...with insults. How you expect people to Google that statement in order to verify it, instead of it already being sourced for verification, is beyond me. You go right ahead and continue to believe you taught me something; I'll continue to smirk every time I pass by that comment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Blosspara, 13 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I just wanted to edit the link. Reference number 36. The link should be http://www.center4research.org/2010/04/girls-to-women/

Blosspara (talk) 02:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done.  Davtra  (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

body - human body

Please change Body to Human body in the first line, it will be more accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.191.130.150 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The first line says, "Puberty is the process of physical changes by which a child's body becomes an adult body capable of reproduction."
What in that first line isn't clear that we are talking about humans? It doesn't make sense to say "child's human body"...when the word "child" refers to humans anyway. Changing "adult body" to "adult human body" is not needed either. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: external links

The links to the animations of Tanner stages have changed. They are now here:

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/HowTheBodyWorks/SexDevelopmentAnOverview/SexualDifferentiation/Pages/PubertyinBoys.aspx http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/HowTheBodyWorks/SexDevelopmentAnOverview/SexualDifferentiation/Pages/PubertyinGirls.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.20.198.70 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.224.227.9, 8 July 2011

I am a teenager who innocently wanted to visit this page. However, when I got down to the section on male puberty, there where nude photos. Since this page is most likely used for mostly teenagers, I would like to request all nude pictures be removed from this topic's page. Thank you.

75.224.227.9 (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. In addition, Wikipedia is not censored, I will start a discussion about the necessity of that specific image. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the image necessary?

After viewing the concerns of the IP, I am posting this message. Is the image on this page necessary or could a drawing be used? I believe that images found on Tanner scale may be more appropriate. I also believe that this image would be more appropriately displayed on that page instead of this one. Ryan Vesey (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

average age for the first menstruation?

Is the average age really not even twelwe? I know it's different from country to country, but here in Sweden it's almost 13,5 years old, accoding to teen magazines and school nurses. I think the article should mention that it varies. In many countrys it's unusual to get your period when you're only eleven years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.55.179 (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Puberty/Archive_1&oldid=1078756231"