![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The child would be weighed in pounds in both US, UK and Ireland, a baby in the UK e.g 6lbs 4oz, not 0.8st. Anything above a ounce isn't usually decimalised anyway so at the least it would be 6+⁄14 not a odd decimal
What does this mean ... the condition is treated to suppress... It's in the last line of the main body. Rklawton 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. Is it clearer now? Is that what you meannt? alteripse 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines
I am a researcher by nature. Call me a life-scholar if you will; I love to learn all I can. I enjoy researching and forming my dissertations to deliver an unchallengeable thesis. It's such great stuff I do it in my spare time as a hobby as well. I don't want to edit this article at all. Since it was made by someone, it apparently has editors. It also is clear that the editors didn't do what they agree to do by making a topic.
I DO want to let the article editors know that I am aware there has been absolutely ZERO critical research, evaluation of evidence, or verification in validity of claims reported in the writing of this article. The editors of this article ignored every guideline of credibility for mythical claims by personal websites
Now don't get mad because I called you on it bluntly. It is an absolutely honest and accurate assessment. Anyone that makes an article should know the guidelines, and know I am correct. In case anyone does think me wrong, I will demonstrate that I am right. Besides, I was an innocent article reader that got so hosed with BS I did what someone else should have. I get to be annoyed.
I'll expose some of the many errors and contradictions stated to be fact, some of which even result in impossibilities, and then finish off with an amazing document that may even abolish a world record. Err... even if it’s not an official one anyway.
What mythrepresentation could there be?
It is verifiable, and reasonable to acknowledge that it is TRUE that a very young female child, one Lina Medina by name did give birth to a son via C Section delivery on May 14, 1939 in Peru.
However, no credible source has provided any valid citation that to addresses the crux of the incident. All that can now be verified is that Lina was an UNKNOWN AGE when she gave birth.
Shut the fuck up, this is wikipedia.
Wikipedia Says: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. Biographical claims about living people need special care. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately.
If any claim's exceptional, this one certainly is. As well, the claim made regards a living person, and is highly contentious, even when special care need be observed. To satisfy such a grave burden of proof and care is perhaps impossible. But certainly NOTHING LESS than an independent and reliable primary source directly verifying the claim can suffice.
That would mean releasing the birth certificate to independent public scrutiny. A notarized copy in hand would be nice, but at the very least a scanned digital image is needed. It shouldn't be hard for anyone to do if they are making verified statements of age to start with, they must have a source.
That lack of verification here more than establishes reasonable doubt; age has no weight of merit. This by default makes any claim to "True Fact" a deception, as there is no FACT. We see the fallacy of argument employed by composition and division of the grammar. Also, Fallacy of Irrelevant is used regularly as well. My favorite example is using Doctors confirming the BIRTH occurred as “proof” supporting the desire AGE when the questions are not related.
These fallacies are obvious in their employment, this is a hoax indeed. How can such a reference be considered “reliable” when deception and argumentative fallacy are employed rather than verifiable supporting citations?
I am conducting a comparative study of reports given on independent sites, by compiling a representative selection of the accounts, and examining the evidence available for general consistency, agreement in details of matter, and the like. I have not started individual checks on all people cited; I will at the least verify any claimed representatives of the US Government to determine they at least held the offices as stated.
Within a short time of cross checking there are really strange inconsistencies of variation and disagreement revealed from one report to the next. That’s unusual if something well documented is being accurately reported on. I wonder now about the general accuracy of all these sites.
A MASSIVE event so high profile and noteworthy that it warrants the co-operation of Governments over INTERCONTINENTAL distance, gathers medical professionals and scholars worldwide to record and discuss it, attracts the interest of industry and business, and garners the requisite outpouring of offers for assistance and comfort from private US citizen? That should be pretty noteworthy. I bet there was LOTS of written by all those really smart people about this historical first, once in a lifetime medical case.
There is not a single independent report out there that cites their sources properly.
No records of any studies or reports that are referenced are available for verification of content, let alone existence.
If such records are available to the report makers, they do not provide them for independent review.
No sources are available to prove or disprove truth of claims made that I can determine; at least there is absolutely no scholarly, industrial, or commercial mention of them online.
== A verifiable, published account from a credible source that disputes popular reports: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,931268,00.html ==
Possible dispute of photographic authenticity: http://experts.about.com/e/l/li/lina_medina.htm There are two published photographs documenting the case. The first one, of poor photographic quality, was taken around the beginning of April, 1939…This photograph is of significant value because it proves Medina's pregnancy as well as the extent of her physiological development. However, this photograph is not widely known outside medical circles. (Oh really? It looks like it’s ONLY known OUTSIDE medical circles for the most part.) http://www.sochem.cl/utilidades/fotosydoc.asp (Photo referenced in relation to Diabetes. Oops. Though it may have some connection to the endocrinology aspect, it’s in Spanish so I am uncertain.)
Press statements were made around 2002 presented biased and unsubstantiated accounts by people who admitted to ulterior motives in the case, who clearly provide conflicting claims incompatible with other reports made.
“Source Citation” 1 The Telegraph (Calcutta, India): Six decades later, world's youngest mother awaits aid http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020827/asp/foreign/story_1140311.asp “The government condemned them to live in poverty. In any other country, they would be the objects of special care,” Jose Sandoval, author of Mother Aged 5 (Apparently never published, printed, or available to the public from sellers.) “We still have time to repair the damage done to her. That’s my fundamental objective,” he added. Sandoval has raised Medina’s case with the office of First Lady Eliane Karp, and has asked the government to grant her a life pension (The motive is money, not truth.) Jurado said his wife, whose story is a medical textbook classic and whose case is confirmed as true by such bodies as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, had turned down Reuters’ request for an interview. (NO medical authority or published case study acknowledges this so-called well documented "textbook" case.) (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, http://www.acog.org/: No reference to case despite claims to confirm it.) (Repeated refusal by the primary to interview, or make any account of story.)
Medina is believed to be the youngest case of precocious puberty in history, Sandoval said. (Unverified.
Precocious Puberty: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1882.htm Author: Paul B Kaplowitz, MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Children's National Medical Center Paul B Kaplowitz, MD, PhD, is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics, Endocrine Society, Lawson-Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and Virginia Pediatrics Society
No published medical studies of this condition reference this case.) He said she had her first period at two-and-a-half, became pregnant aged four years and eight months (How long was she pregnant for? Why are all accounts different on basic, fundamental, and concrete details such as ages and dates?)
"Resources" cited as "transcripts" of first hand accounts as well as scientific data are nothing more than 404 file errors on a site that doesn't exist.
“Source Citation” 2 An entry in French from the Dictionary of Medical Science, relaying the account of Edmundo Escomel in May 1939 http://www.sexualrecords.com/youngbirthfre.html Not Found The requested URL /youngbirtheng.html was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
(English translation) http://www.sexualrecords.com/youngbirtheng.html Not Found The requested URL /youngbirtheng.html was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
“Source” Host Site http://www.sexualrecords.com/ This is the default page for an iPowerWeb hosting server. To visit our main page click here. For technical support, please click here or send an email to support@ipowerweb.com.
Different independent sites give accounts that are in conflict with each other and can not be justified against each other.
“Source Citation” 3 The world's youngest mother http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/
Medina was born on September 27, 1933 in the small village of Paurange. She was only 5 years 8 months old at the birth of her child on Mother's Day, May 14, 1939.
Born at full term at Lima's maternity clinic (Do the math according to Sandoval’s statements.)
the little mother who had begun menstruating at the age of 8 months (Depending on which account, I suppose.)
An Urban Myth site is considered an authority on the subject even though they clearly do NOT concede that it is proven, and nothing they say is supportable, most is contradicted in many places, even in their own account, and is presented with a clearly biased and ulterior motive.
“Source Citation” 4 A Detailed Snopes.com article on the subject http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp Urban Legends Reference Pages: Youngest Mother
“reputedly” a five-year-old girl “claim” of a five-year-old girl giving birth is “apparently” true (That’s a lot of uncertainty for something given factual truth.)
Supposed sources they list: 1. La Presse Medicale. "La Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(38): 744, 1939 (13 May 1939). 2. La Presse Medicale. "La Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(43): 875, 1939 (31 May 1939). 3. La Presse Medicale. "L'ovaire de Lina Medina, la Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(94): 1648, 1939 (19 December 1939). 4. United Press. "Five-and-Half-Year-old Mother and Baby Reported Doing Well." Los Angeles Times. 16 May 1939 (p. 2). 5. Los Angeles Times. "Physician Upholds Birth Possibility." 16 May 1939 (p. 2). 6. The New York Times. "U.S. Health Official Returns from Peru." 15 November 1939 (p. 9). 7. The New York Times. "Mother, 5, to Visit Here." 8 August 1940 (p. 21). 8. The New York Times. "Wife of Peruvian Envoy Arrives to Join Him Here." 29 July 1941 (p. 8). 9. Spectator Wire Services. "The Mother Peru Forgot." Hamilton Spectator. 23 August 2002 (p. B4).
(See what can actually be verified in all that.)
The editors of this article have a lot of work ahead of them if they do not wish this article deleted. Rakkasan 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There's an article from October 2006 in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology that mentions Lina Medina. Unfortunately, the databases I have access to won't have full text until a year after the article's publication, but here are Google Scholar links showing a brief excerpt. It appears that the age of 5 years, 7 months is still being treated as fact. [1] [2] [3]
I also found a citation to a 1941 article in the New York Journal of Dentistry (11: 225) entitled "Dental Findings in Five Year Old Peruvian Mother". Again, frustratingly, I don't have full text, but the title is pretty clear. A review article that cites this paper is available for download here; see the first page and the first reference. So the age of 5 is still being used in the literature two years after the skeptical comments mentioned in the Time article, which come from doctors who had not examined Lina Medina (and would presumably not have been able to read a full account in the scientific literature yet, since the article was written only ten days after the delivery). —Cel ithemis 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding the two sites offered to challenge the authenticity of the photograph, the first one is simply a mirror of Wikipedia content, so I don't see how it is relevant. The second link, to the Chilean Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes, does *not* connect the photo with diabetes, and furthermore gives it the filename Lina%20medina.gif, which if anything would confirm rather than deny its authenticity. —Cel ithemis 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Or that little stone in the gears. I guess that's non-constructive,and should be utterly ignored in this article, yes? Ignore that there are serious issues with this article and it will be reported for challenge and deletion. 71.193.224.105 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
THAT IS SO SAD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.44.219 ( talk) 00:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
yea i know.. whooaa did someone rape her?? i wanna know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.107.70 ( talk) 06:57, 12 June 2004 (UTC)
So in other words, she was biologically mature by the time she was 5...holy crap. Peaceman 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I know, I didnt realy beleve it for a while — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.188.49 ( talk) 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Bloody hell... - Ta bu shi da yu 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There have been cases of a twin found growning inside another due to some medical defeact (well obv.), just wondering if it was anything like that - but usually the twin inside the twin doesn't survive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.89.168 ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a potential consequence of precocious puberty. Puberty with onset in infancy is uncommon but not so rare that most pediatric endocrinologists haven't seen it. We treat it now so this sort of thing doesn't happen. There is no reason to think she did not get pregnant the usual way. Is there a country where that doesn't represent statutory rape even if it wasn't "forcible"? alteripse 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question as to what happened. We all know that this was clearly nothing more than child molestation. It's a question of who. But the man who molested her is, more than likely, long dead... I think it is quite sad that she never got the justice she deserved. I should also note that in those days sexual crimes against children weren't a concern... they didn't even begin to matter until, oh, somewhere in the seventies maybe? SilentWind 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind
a five year old can't consent to sex, so of course it's rape.
I suppose there are some ways how it could have happened. And without the father necessarily being a molestator. Maybe while bathing together with the child, since it's something normal here in Peru, and parents aren't usually sick people. But who knows... We'll never know, but it doesn't need to necessarily have been child molestation. It would be too much of a coincidence that she had that child and that precocious puberty problem altogether.
How high is the authenticity of Lina Medina connection to her pregnancy? (she was 5 years old...) -- 193.171.251.92 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would the information from the bottom of this page [5] be useful? It isn't related to her pregnancy but it explains what happened years afterward -- 213.162.107.219 19:17 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no district named "Chicago chico" in Lima, that is a very old "nickname" for Surquillo, situated south of Lima.
Copies of the second photo are widely available. I found these two by Google image search. Does anyone know whether they are old enough to be usable here? Copyright status any different than the one we have? [6] or [7] alteripse 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
but the photo is in the chinese article.
202.156.6.54
07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I found two photos other than the two in the snopes article.
here and [
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=nlp&search=lina%20medina&img=\
a0037\6774555\31726773.html here]. Although for the second one you have to register to see it full size. -- 213.162.107.219 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Due to a lack of sources to establish independent notability for Gerardo Lozada, I propose that the entirety of the article be merged into an appropriate section in this article. I can find no non-trivial sources that would help expand the Lozada article; he is notable only in relation to Medina and the information available is not sufficient to create a full, neutral biography on this individual. There is nothing currently there that would not be appropriate if stated in this article. If there is consensus to do so, or if no one comments within a week, I will undertake the merge myself. Cheers, CP 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If it was, other sites would be in big trouble. Snopes.com has the picture along with many other sites (I can't name them all). I don't think it is, personally. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ignore my last post, It was meant for another section. Sorry!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I declined a prod on the basis of the very extensive coverage elsewhere. However, I am not happy with including the photograph. its not pornography, but it is inappropriate. Given the circumstances in the article, I do not see how she can possibly have given informed consent. it was taken in an earlier generation where such things were customary with respect to people in the lesser developed world--it no longer meets standards of responsibility. Under the doctrine of do not harm, I'm removing it, as BLP enforcement. Please do not reinsert without consent at BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk) 07:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any information about the russian case then? As mentioned in the foremost paragraphs? 84.9.73.64:80 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Could the picture of her pregnant be considered child pornography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RasenganController ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If it was, other sites would be in big trouble. Snopes.com has the picture along with many other sites (I can't name them all). I don't think it is, personally. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not worried so much about legality but about respecting the dignity and right to privacy of the woman. Does she really want a naked picture of her as a pregnant child published in an online encyclopaedia like this for all to see? Maybe crop to show her face only.-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It was from 1938. I highly doubt there were any laws against children and porn back then. Also, Wikipedia has this thing about certain old photos (1920s and earlier, but I think it's a year limit) being free for all to use and post. ★ Dasani★ 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it objectionable that this picture is posted. I have nothing else to add but that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorissaurus ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
112.205.200.17 ( talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the following paragraph, there is a generalizing and racist statement with no citation, in regards to "andean indians." "andean indians" are, in reality, composed of thousands of groups of people spanning 4+ countries and comprised of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Saying that their festivities often end up in orgy where rape is common is ridiculous, innaccurate, completely racist and is a sweeping generalization that is harmful to many people. I suggest this be removed.
Although Lina's father was arrested on suspicion of child sexual abuse, he was later released due to lack of evidence, and the biological father who impregnated Lina was never identified.[4][5] Suspects were her father, her 9-year-old mental defective brother,[6] a drunk villager, or one of her relatives during one of frequent festivities celebrated by Andean Indians which often ended up in orgies in which rape was not uncommon. However, if this theory were accepted, there still was no explanation of how a five-year-old girl could conceive a child.[7]
142.151.24.143 ( talk) 00:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The picture on this article is child porn and should be removed. I know its science and all that but that is still child porn on that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berryaaron26 ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably Lina Medina was died on 21st November, 2013. not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra866868 ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please black bar out the breasts of this 5 year old, it is clearly child pornography and the child was raped. To show it is inappropriate.
2601:9:4080:549:9457:2920:310B:2A86 ( talk) 08:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It was extremely beyond rare and unusual, one time only ever for 5-year-old girl to be giving birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.104 ( talk) 08:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove picture of naked child as this is child pornography. 76.209.86.198 ( talk) 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this not a record too? Assuming, of course, that it is true. AlwynJPie ( talk) 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Medina was a case of precocious puberty. With early sexual development comes the risk of pregnancy. The statement that "Additionally, there was no explanation of how a five-year-old girl could conceive a child" should be deleted. Furthermore it does not belong under the section on her later life. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot take this article seriously. It seems too far fetched. There seems to be little or no credible evidence to back up such an unlikely event. Why has Lina Medina been so evasive? Is there evidence to prove that Lina was only 5 when she gave birth and is there DNA evidence to show that she was the real mother to the baby she is alleged to have given birth to? AlwynJPie ( talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22. I agree precocious puberty exists but at such a young age the body would not be developed enough to sustain a pregnancy without causing damage to her reproductive system. Unlike today, in 1933 when Medina was alleged to have given birth there were no genetic tests to verify relationship. But her alleged son lived until 1979. Were tests ever carried out in recent years, with more modern technology, to prove such an unlikely occurrence? I have seen very little evidence to back up this story so I can't help but think this is just another Piltdown Man type of hoax. Please show me something that will make me change my mind. AlwynJPie ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
But were tests done in more recent times with modern technology to confirm this unlikely event? If not, why not? And very strange how her reproductive system was still able to give birth to another baby in 1972, nearly 40 years after giving birth to her first. And not wanting to be interviewed makes me even more suspicious. AlwynJPie ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22. That would be very helpful. But I can't understand how others have just accepted this as fact and not challenged it. AlwynJPie ( talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we had to go with what WP:reliable sources say on this, the possibility of a hoax is already in the article, if there are more sources to support that point of view, they should be added. Please remember that this is the biography of a living person. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
AlwynJPie, the article includes several references including The Telegraph, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and a few other newspapers. By asserting that you "can't help but think this is just another Piltdown Man type of hoax", you are implying that these sources are unreliable, at least for the purpose of supporting the information in this article. I suspect that these newspaper reports are based partly on the papers published in La Presse Médicale.
"Please show me something that will make me change my mind." Have you read the references provided? I suspect that the papers in La Presse Médicale should be regarded as the most reliable. However the fact that these were published in 1939 makes them difficult to find.
Editors of the article have listed the sources. However they are not required to provide the content of the sources for you. Indeed, the content of the sources is probably copyrighted. The onus is upon you to seek out the sources for your own verification. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, regardless of the investigations that you have or have not carried out. However in the absence of sources that assert the event as a hoax, your opinion is less reliable than La Presse Médicale and the newspaper reports.
As an aside, there are other issues with this article. From "Documentation", paragraph 3: "Although the case was called a hoax by some, a number of doctors over the years have verified it based on biopsies, X rays of the fetal skeleton in utero, and photographs taken by the doctors caring for her." The reference provided is page 51 of The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation. However page 51 of that source does not support that statement. Also, there are several unreferenced statements in the article. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Do any modern experts believe this story? AlwynJPie ( talk) 00:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently deleted the photo of the naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again, because I cant't see any permission of her - the depicted person - to use that photo in wikipedia.-- Alice d25 ( talk) 12:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well let's look at the NFCC stuff it's being used for, and the reasoning on why to use this non free image. It's pretty plain and simple to me. Lina Medina, being the worlds youngest mother, is not only a world record but a notable event in medical history. The image shows Lina when she was pregnant, a situation that is extremely rare for a girl that is five years old. The appearance of a five year old that is pregnant is unique and might be unimaginable to the average reader.
That sums it up, methinks. The fact that this is the youngest pregnant mother in the world at 5 years old and is the only documented incident of it ever happening in history I think is very much worthy of the image on this page and as such, the contextual significance and the detrimental understanding stems from this. It's a very huge and important event in medical history.
Tutelary (
talk)
20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Apropos to this conversation: meta:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities: "Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: The image that is being debated is not child pornography in the least. And that Hammersoft is implying that it is child pornography is silly. Like I told Hammersoft above, "the naked child" argument does not fly in this case, as others have made clear above on this talk page, with even a comparison to the naked-child image used in the Virgin Killer article. Wikipedia has included images of naked children, from the Medina image, to the Virgin Killer image, to images concerning poverty and/or war for years now. And the only way that it is a problem is when it violates one of Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines, such as WP:GRATUITOUS. These images are not included as child pornography, and, as my participation at the Child pornography article/talk page and related topics show, I am against child pornography. These images are included to aid encyclopedic content. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
According to the article, Medina is still alive and she has consistently hid from media attention and refused requests for interviews and she and her family have refused money for this story. Also, at five years of age, she would have lacked ability to adequately consent to this nude photograph, as she obviously lacked ability to consent to sexual activity. It does seem striking that the media convention is to typically avoid even naming rape victims (particularly minors) but here it is being argued that we ought to display a nude photo, of a five year old rape victim, due to the interest factor of the nude picture in question showing her pregnant at such a young age as the result of child sexual assault. I think including this picture would raise BLP and other serious concerns. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I note that the mere existence of this thread on possible BLP issues has now been used as a reason to remove the image. That's very unethical, and very sad for Wikipedia. I really don't like the possible precedent being set here. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
My only concern here is BLP. If we have unequivocal permission from the subject, we should include the image. Absent that, we should not. And, if we ever do, the image should be way down in the article, well "below the fold", so it doesn't appear on the first screen that opens to the reader. (Principle of least surprise.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Zdawg1029 insists on adding the following sentence to the "First son and later life" section: "Medina gave birth to a son at the age of 5 years and 7 months via cesarean section, making her the youngest known women to give birth in history."
I reverted him twice on that addition, seen here and here, pointing out his typo of "women" and that the material is already mentioned in the lead and in the "Early life and development" section. Zdawg1029's argument is: "It is not redundant when the main purpose of the section is pointing out that fact. That's what the section is there for, to explain that. Plus the ces section isn't mentioned anywhere else." Not only has he reverted me twice, but he has refused to fix his typo, as if I am supposed to fix it for him. I ask others to look at the "Early life and development" section; the cesarean section aspect is already mentioned there, so is her age, and the fact that no other person has given birth that young. Therefore, it is entirely unnecessary and redundant to state "Medina gave birth to a son at the age of 5 years and 7 months via cesarean section, making her the youngest known women to give birth in history." in the "First son and later life" section. This is a relatively small article, and people (unless they have a serious memory problem) are not going to forget this bit after reading it in the lead/and or in the "Early life and development" section; so the third repeat is pointless.
I know that others are watching this talk page because of the picture debate from last year; if no one else watching this article/talk page weighs in on this dispute, I will take the matter to WP:Third opinion or restructure/rename the sections; it is silly to take this to WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I got a brilliant idea. How about both of you edit war until one of you gives up? BOTH of you are edit warring on this, and both of you need to work out the issue here on the talk page, rather than continue to edit war and bash each other in edit summaries. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add her modern photo-- Kaiyr ( talk) 13:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that an image could go in the information template, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it properly (without copyright infringement and such). JoshBM16 ( talk) 13:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states that there are only two published photographs, but there are several at http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/lina-medina-youngest-mother-1939/ claiming to be of her. (I don't think any of these would be useable on copyright grounds.) Almonaster ( talk) 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is she native American or metizo or Creole? -- 92.242.59.7 ( talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please, write about it in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олег Ключников ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Snopes reports that Lina Medina was 5 years, 7 months, 21 days old when she gave birth.
AnonymissOC ( talk) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "He died in 1979 at the age of 40, from either bone cancer or a bone marrow infection (varying sources).[2][1]" to "He died in 1979 at the age of 40, from either bone cancer or a bone marrow infection (varying sources).[citation needed]"
Neither given source mentions the cause of death of Gerardo Medina. 70.54.131.32 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this: the the youngest known person in history to give birth. to this : the youngest known person in history to give birth. or this : the youngest known person in history to give birth. to avoid repetition of the word "the" 88.184.219.160 ( talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Extraneous 'the' removed. Thanks for finding that! --
Hammersoft (
talk)
15:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could you help me, please? I'm trying to get this photo w:ru:File:Lina medina.jpg in fair use to be removed from the infobox in ruwiki version of this article. Is there any US law that prevents such photos? Thank you, IKhitron ( talk) 10:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This information from other wikis about her death (added as easy as 2 years ago) was thoroughly investigated, see talk above, and it was concluded that other wikis are wrong. Therefore we don't need to litter the article top with useless tags. Non-English wikis, with rare exception such as German, are notoriously careless about checking their sources, and we don't have to indulge them. I undestand this tag may be very useful for cases recent deaths, but in our case, sorry, no reliable confirmation for many years already. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find a single source, but according to ruWikipedia and Wikidata (both without source), she has died November 8, 2015. Ivannah ( talk) 23:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This is actually untrue.It was actually true last year. As for sources cited by Flyer, they are without author nor any reputable refs given, hence low credibility. Sources of comparable "quality" (eg [10]) say "Hoy ella tiene 82 años" . Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in medical history"
to "is a Peruvian woman who became renowned as a child for being the youngest confirmed survivor of statutory rape to undergo childhood pregnancy and childbirth in medical history"
Because identifying the subject as simply the youngest mother is not being fully transparent; it glazes over the fact that Lina's pregnancy as a five year old was made possible only by grave sexual assault. Calling Lina a mother has positive connotations which I am certain are obvious to you, Reader. I suggest using the word "childbirth" as a more objective choice to identify a then-child giving birth to another child, without those connotations as they do not apply to Lina's case. Clarifyingedits ( talk) 21:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
answered=yes
back to answered=no
.
♪♫Al
ucard
16♫♪
05:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Edit summary: partial rv per WP:BDP. She isn't 115+ years old, and we have no sources confirming her death
The category name is not "Dead people", its name is "Living people", therefore for inclusion into it we must have references she is living, per WP:CATV. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
. Do you have a cite from a reliable, secondary source that indicates she has died? If you don't, then this is nothing but speculation because she would be old now.- Did you read my reply? I am not adding category 'Dead people". If we do not know some fact for sure, we simply do not this fact in wikipedia. WP:BLP does not trump WP:V, it merely makes it more strict. All information in wikipedia article must be verifiable. is not disabled by WP:BLP. Therefore if you want to mark her as "living people" please provide a valid reference for this. The policy says "Unreferenced information may be removed at any time. You restored unreferenced information in vilation of the most basic wikipedia policy. WP:BDP does not say about category. Anyway, I have found appropriate category. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Identity of the father" section, footnote #9 needs to be removed as it refers to Hilda Trujillo, a girl who gave birth at the age of 9, and has nothing to do with Lina Medina. Wikicorrectorina ( talk) 07:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She was actually raped by an 35 year old man. She was playing hide and seek looking for her friend in an alley when she was raped. She was threatened to keep quiet. 2600:8800:3080:3EE8:3C72:9746:243E:BD6C ( talk) 21:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Is she native American or metizo or Creole?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
5 years old can not accurately be described as a "woman". Please correct this. 142.113.79.223 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
In this piece, it reads as though precocious puberty was the cause of this child’s pregnancy. Yes there is a sentence in one section about the father being held and then released on suspicion of child abuse. However, in the effort to be “just the facts” there is an absurd lacunae that ends up colluding with the abuse she clearly suffered. The cause of the pregnancy was child sexual abuse, not precocious puberty. 24.151.78.219 ( talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Lina Medina was a victim of sexual abuse. This article claiming that she was just experience "precocious puberty" is covering up what really happened to her, and is grossly insensitive towards both children's and women's rights and issues. Wikipedia is a source used by many people, and allowing such a dangerous thing to be promoted and misconstrued can result in potential abusers being misinformed and justifying their actions. "Well it's not rape, it's precocious puberty! I can assault children." 24.184.101.129 ( talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The four IP comments above stem from a fundamental misunderstanding. "Precocious puberty" is not meant as some subjective judgmental comment implying inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or consent for sex on the part of a child. Instead, precocious puberty is a purely biological condition in which puberty occurs at an unusually early age. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
5 years old can not accurately be described as a "woman". Please correct this. 142.113.79.223 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I read that she died seven years ago. Illang ( talk) 22:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The child would be weighed in pounds in both US, UK and Ireland, a baby in the UK e.g 6lbs 4oz, not 0.8st. Anything above a ounce isn't usually decimalised anyway so at the least it would be 6+⁄14 not a odd decimal
What does this mean ... the condition is treated to suppress... It's in the last line of the main body. Rklawton 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. Is it clearer now? Is that what you meannt? alteripse 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines
I am a researcher by nature. Call me a life-scholar if you will; I love to learn all I can. I enjoy researching and forming my dissertations to deliver an unchallengeable thesis. It's such great stuff I do it in my spare time as a hobby as well. I don't want to edit this article at all. Since it was made by someone, it apparently has editors. It also is clear that the editors didn't do what they agree to do by making a topic.
I DO want to let the article editors know that I am aware there has been absolutely ZERO critical research, evaluation of evidence, or verification in validity of claims reported in the writing of this article. The editors of this article ignored every guideline of credibility for mythical claims by personal websites
Now don't get mad because I called you on it bluntly. It is an absolutely honest and accurate assessment. Anyone that makes an article should know the guidelines, and know I am correct. In case anyone does think me wrong, I will demonstrate that I am right. Besides, I was an innocent article reader that got so hosed with BS I did what someone else should have. I get to be annoyed.
I'll expose some of the many errors and contradictions stated to be fact, some of which even result in impossibilities, and then finish off with an amazing document that may even abolish a world record. Err... even if it’s not an official one anyway.
What mythrepresentation could there be?
It is verifiable, and reasonable to acknowledge that it is TRUE that a very young female child, one Lina Medina by name did give birth to a son via C Section delivery on May 14, 1939 in Peru.
However, no credible source has provided any valid citation that to addresses the crux of the incident. All that can now be verified is that Lina was an UNKNOWN AGE when she gave birth.
Shut the fuck up, this is wikipedia.
Wikipedia Says: Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. Biographical claims about living people need special care. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately.
If any claim's exceptional, this one certainly is. As well, the claim made regards a living person, and is highly contentious, even when special care need be observed. To satisfy such a grave burden of proof and care is perhaps impossible. But certainly NOTHING LESS than an independent and reliable primary source directly verifying the claim can suffice.
That would mean releasing the birth certificate to independent public scrutiny. A notarized copy in hand would be nice, but at the very least a scanned digital image is needed. It shouldn't be hard for anyone to do if they are making verified statements of age to start with, they must have a source.
That lack of verification here more than establishes reasonable doubt; age has no weight of merit. This by default makes any claim to "True Fact" a deception, as there is no FACT. We see the fallacy of argument employed by composition and division of the grammar. Also, Fallacy of Irrelevant is used regularly as well. My favorite example is using Doctors confirming the BIRTH occurred as “proof” supporting the desire AGE when the questions are not related.
These fallacies are obvious in their employment, this is a hoax indeed. How can such a reference be considered “reliable” when deception and argumentative fallacy are employed rather than verifiable supporting citations?
I am conducting a comparative study of reports given on independent sites, by compiling a representative selection of the accounts, and examining the evidence available for general consistency, agreement in details of matter, and the like. I have not started individual checks on all people cited; I will at the least verify any claimed representatives of the US Government to determine they at least held the offices as stated.
Within a short time of cross checking there are really strange inconsistencies of variation and disagreement revealed from one report to the next. That’s unusual if something well documented is being accurately reported on. I wonder now about the general accuracy of all these sites.
A MASSIVE event so high profile and noteworthy that it warrants the co-operation of Governments over INTERCONTINENTAL distance, gathers medical professionals and scholars worldwide to record and discuss it, attracts the interest of industry and business, and garners the requisite outpouring of offers for assistance and comfort from private US citizen? That should be pretty noteworthy. I bet there was LOTS of written by all those really smart people about this historical first, once in a lifetime medical case.
There is not a single independent report out there that cites their sources properly.
No records of any studies or reports that are referenced are available for verification of content, let alone existence.
If such records are available to the report makers, they do not provide them for independent review.
No sources are available to prove or disprove truth of claims made that I can determine; at least there is absolutely no scholarly, industrial, or commercial mention of them online.
== A verifiable, published account from a credible source that disputes popular reports: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,931268,00.html ==
Possible dispute of photographic authenticity: http://experts.about.com/e/l/li/lina_medina.htm There are two published photographs documenting the case. The first one, of poor photographic quality, was taken around the beginning of April, 1939…This photograph is of significant value because it proves Medina's pregnancy as well as the extent of her physiological development. However, this photograph is not widely known outside medical circles. (Oh really? It looks like it’s ONLY known OUTSIDE medical circles for the most part.) http://www.sochem.cl/utilidades/fotosydoc.asp (Photo referenced in relation to Diabetes. Oops. Though it may have some connection to the endocrinology aspect, it’s in Spanish so I am uncertain.)
Press statements were made around 2002 presented biased and unsubstantiated accounts by people who admitted to ulterior motives in the case, who clearly provide conflicting claims incompatible with other reports made.
“Source Citation” 1 The Telegraph (Calcutta, India): Six decades later, world's youngest mother awaits aid http://www.telegraphindia.com/1020827/asp/foreign/story_1140311.asp “The government condemned them to live in poverty. In any other country, they would be the objects of special care,” Jose Sandoval, author of Mother Aged 5 (Apparently never published, printed, or available to the public from sellers.) “We still have time to repair the damage done to her. That’s my fundamental objective,” he added. Sandoval has raised Medina’s case with the office of First Lady Eliane Karp, and has asked the government to grant her a life pension (The motive is money, not truth.) Jurado said his wife, whose story is a medical textbook classic and whose case is confirmed as true by such bodies as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, had turned down Reuters’ request for an interview. (NO medical authority or published case study acknowledges this so-called well documented "textbook" case.) (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, http://www.acog.org/: No reference to case despite claims to confirm it.) (Repeated refusal by the primary to interview, or make any account of story.)
Medina is believed to be the youngest case of precocious puberty in history, Sandoval said. (Unverified.
Precocious Puberty: http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1882.htm Author: Paul B Kaplowitz, MD, PhD, Professor of Pediatrics, The George Washington University School of Medicine, Children's National Medical Center Paul B Kaplowitz, MD, PhD, is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics, Endocrine Society, Lawson-Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and Virginia Pediatrics Society
No published medical studies of this condition reference this case.) He said she had her first period at two-and-a-half, became pregnant aged four years and eight months (How long was she pregnant for? Why are all accounts different on basic, fundamental, and concrete details such as ages and dates?)
"Resources" cited as "transcripts" of first hand accounts as well as scientific data are nothing more than 404 file errors on a site that doesn't exist.
“Source Citation” 2 An entry in French from the Dictionary of Medical Science, relaying the account of Edmundo Escomel in May 1939 http://www.sexualrecords.com/youngbirthfre.html Not Found The requested URL /youngbirtheng.html was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
(English translation) http://www.sexualrecords.com/youngbirtheng.html Not Found The requested URL /youngbirtheng.html was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
“Source” Host Site http://www.sexualrecords.com/ This is the default page for an iPowerWeb hosting server. To visit our main page click here. For technical support, please click here or send an email to support@ipowerweb.com.
Different independent sites give accounts that are in conflict with each other and can not be justified against each other.
“Source Citation” 3 The world's youngest mother http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/
Medina was born on September 27, 1933 in the small village of Paurange. She was only 5 years 8 months old at the birth of her child on Mother's Day, May 14, 1939.
Born at full term at Lima's maternity clinic (Do the math according to Sandoval’s statements.)
the little mother who had begun menstruating at the age of 8 months (Depending on which account, I suppose.)
An Urban Myth site is considered an authority on the subject even though they clearly do NOT concede that it is proven, and nothing they say is supportable, most is contradicted in many places, even in their own account, and is presented with a clearly biased and ulterior motive.
“Source Citation” 4 A Detailed Snopes.com article on the subject http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp Urban Legends Reference Pages: Youngest Mother
“reputedly” a five-year-old girl “claim” of a five-year-old girl giving birth is “apparently” true (That’s a lot of uncertainty for something given factual truth.)
Supposed sources they list: 1. La Presse Medicale. "La Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(38): 744, 1939 (13 May 1939). 2. La Presse Medicale. "La Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(43): 875, 1939 (31 May 1939). 3. La Presse Medicale. "L'ovaire de Lina Medina, la Plus Jeune Mère du Monde." 47(94): 1648, 1939 (19 December 1939). 4. United Press. "Five-and-Half-Year-old Mother and Baby Reported Doing Well." Los Angeles Times. 16 May 1939 (p. 2). 5. Los Angeles Times. "Physician Upholds Birth Possibility." 16 May 1939 (p. 2). 6. The New York Times. "U.S. Health Official Returns from Peru." 15 November 1939 (p. 9). 7. The New York Times. "Mother, 5, to Visit Here." 8 August 1940 (p. 21). 8. The New York Times. "Wife of Peruvian Envoy Arrives to Join Him Here." 29 July 1941 (p. 8). 9. Spectator Wire Services. "The Mother Peru Forgot." Hamilton Spectator. 23 August 2002 (p. B4).
(See what can actually be verified in all that.)
The editors of this article have a lot of work ahead of them if they do not wish this article deleted. Rakkasan 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There's an article from October 2006 in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology that mentions Lina Medina. Unfortunately, the databases I have access to won't have full text until a year after the article's publication, but here are Google Scholar links showing a brief excerpt. It appears that the age of 5 years, 7 months is still being treated as fact. [1] [2] [3]
I also found a citation to a 1941 article in the New York Journal of Dentistry (11: 225) entitled "Dental Findings in Five Year Old Peruvian Mother". Again, frustratingly, I don't have full text, but the title is pretty clear. A review article that cites this paper is available for download here; see the first page and the first reference. So the age of 5 is still being used in the literature two years after the skeptical comments mentioned in the Time article, which come from doctors who had not examined Lina Medina (and would presumably not have been able to read a full account in the scientific literature yet, since the article was written only ten days after the delivery). —Cel ithemis 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, regarding the two sites offered to challenge the authenticity of the photograph, the first one is simply a mirror of Wikipedia content, so I don't see how it is relevant. The second link, to the Chilean Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes, does *not* connect the photo with diabetes, and furthermore gives it the filename Lina%20medina.gif, which if anything would confirm rather than deny its authenticity. —Cel ithemis 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Or that little stone in the gears. I guess that's non-constructive,and should be utterly ignored in this article, yes? Ignore that there are serious issues with this article and it will be reported for challenge and deletion. 71.193.224.105 05:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
THAT IS SO SAD! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.44.219 ( talk) 00:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
yea i know.. whooaa did someone rape her?? i wanna know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.107.70 ( talk) 06:57, 12 June 2004 (UTC)
So in other words, she was biologically mature by the time she was 5...holy crap. Peaceman 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I know, I didnt realy beleve it for a while — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.188.49 ( talk) 21:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Bloody hell... - Ta bu shi da yu 16:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
There have been cases of a twin found growning inside another due to some medical defeact (well obv.), just wondering if it was anything like that - but usually the twin inside the twin doesn't survive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.89.168 ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a potential consequence of precocious puberty. Puberty with onset in infancy is uncommon but not so rare that most pediatric endocrinologists haven't seen it. We treat it now so this sort of thing doesn't happen. There is no reason to think she did not get pregnant the usual way. Is there a country where that doesn't represent statutory rape even if it wasn't "forcible"? alteripse 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not a question as to what happened. We all know that this was clearly nothing more than child molestation. It's a question of who. But the man who molested her is, more than likely, long dead... I think it is quite sad that she never got the justice she deserved. I should also note that in those days sexual crimes against children weren't a concern... they didn't even begin to matter until, oh, somewhere in the seventies maybe? SilentWind 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind
a five year old can't consent to sex, so of course it's rape.
I suppose there are some ways how it could have happened. And without the father necessarily being a molestator. Maybe while bathing together with the child, since it's something normal here in Peru, and parents aren't usually sick people. But who knows... We'll never know, but it doesn't need to necessarily have been child molestation. It would be too much of a coincidence that she had that child and that precocious puberty problem altogether.
How high is the authenticity of Lina Medina connection to her pregnancy? (she was 5 years old...) -- 193.171.251.92 10:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Would the information from the bottom of this page [5] be useful? It isn't related to her pregnancy but it explains what happened years afterward -- 213.162.107.219 19:17 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no district named "Chicago chico" in Lima, that is a very old "nickname" for Surquillo, situated south of Lima.
Copies of the second photo are widely available. I found these two by Google image search. Does anyone know whether they are old enough to be usable here? Copyright status any different than the one we have? [6] or [7] alteripse 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
but the photo is in the chinese article.
202.156.6.54
07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I found two photos other than the two in the snopes article.
here and [
http://www.newspaperarchive.com/LandingPage.aspx?type=nlp&search=lina%20medina&img=\
a0037\6774555\31726773.html here]. Although for the second one you have to register to see it full size. -- 213.162.107.219 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Due to a lack of sources to establish independent notability for Gerardo Lozada, I propose that the entirety of the article be merged into an appropriate section in this article. I can find no non-trivial sources that would help expand the Lozada article; he is notable only in relation to Medina and the information available is not sufficient to create a full, neutral biography on this individual. There is nothing currently there that would not be appropriate if stated in this article. If there is consensus to do so, or if no one comments within a week, I will undertake the merge myself. Cheers, CP 02:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If it was, other sites would be in big trouble. Snopes.com has the picture along with many other sites (I can't name them all). I don't think it is, personally. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Ignore my last post, It was meant for another section. Sorry!!! -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I declined a prod on the basis of the very extensive coverage elsewhere. However, I am not happy with including the photograph. its not pornography, but it is inappropriate. Given the circumstances in the article, I do not see how she can possibly have given informed consent. it was taken in an earlier generation where such things were customary with respect to people in the lesser developed world--it no longer meets standards of responsibility. Under the doctrine of do not harm, I'm removing it, as BLP enforcement. Please do not reinsert without consent at BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk) 07:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there any information about the russian case then? As mentioned in the foremost paragraphs? 84.9.73.64:80 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Could the picture of her pregnant be considered child pornography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RasenganController ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If it was, other sites would be in big trouble. Snopes.com has the picture along with many other sites (I can't name them all). I don't think it is, personally. -- Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not worried so much about legality but about respecting the dignity and right to privacy of the woman. Does she really want a naked picture of her as a pregnant child published in an online encyclopaedia like this for all to see? Maybe crop to show her face only.-- Sonjaaa ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It was from 1938. I highly doubt there were any laws against children and porn back then. Also, Wikipedia has this thing about certain old photos (1920s and earlier, but I think it's a year limit) being free for all to use and post. ★ Dasani★ 04:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it objectionable that this picture is posted. I have nothing else to add but that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorissaurus ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
112.205.200.17 ( talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the following paragraph, there is a generalizing and racist statement with no citation, in regards to "andean indians." "andean indians" are, in reality, composed of thousands of groups of people spanning 4+ countries and comprised of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Saying that their festivities often end up in orgy where rape is common is ridiculous, innaccurate, completely racist and is a sweeping generalization that is harmful to many people. I suggest this be removed.
Although Lina's father was arrested on suspicion of child sexual abuse, he was later released due to lack of evidence, and the biological father who impregnated Lina was never identified.[4][5] Suspects were her father, her 9-year-old mental defective brother,[6] a drunk villager, or one of her relatives during one of frequent festivities celebrated by Andean Indians which often ended up in orgies in which rape was not uncommon. However, if this theory were accepted, there still was no explanation of how a five-year-old girl could conceive a child.[7]
142.151.24.143 ( talk) 00:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The picture on this article is child porn and should be removed. I know its science and all that but that is still child porn on that picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berryaaron26 ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Probably Lina Medina was died on 21st November, 2013. not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishra866868 ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please black bar out the breasts of this 5 year old, it is clearly child pornography and the child was raped. To show it is inappropriate.
2601:9:4080:549:9457:2920:310B:2A86 ( talk) 08:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
It was extremely beyond rare and unusual, one time only ever for 5-year-old girl to be giving birth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.183.104 ( talk) 08:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove picture of naked child as this is child pornography. 76.209.86.198 ( talk) 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Is this not a record too? Assuming, of course, that it is true. AlwynJPie ( talk) 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Medina was a case of precocious puberty. With early sexual development comes the risk of pregnancy. The statement that "Additionally, there was no explanation of how a five-year-old girl could conceive a child" should be deleted. Furthermore it does not belong under the section on her later life. Royalcourtier ( talk) 06:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot take this article seriously. It seems too far fetched. There seems to be little or no credible evidence to back up such an unlikely event. Why has Lina Medina been so evasive? Is there evidence to prove that Lina was only 5 when she gave birth and is there DNA evidence to show that she was the real mother to the baby she is alleged to have given birth to? AlwynJPie ( talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22. I agree precocious puberty exists but at such a young age the body would not be developed enough to sustain a pregnancy without causing damage to her reproductive system. Unlike today, in 1933 when Medina was alleged to have given birth there were no genetic tests to verify relationship. But her alleged son lived until 1979. Were tests ever carried out in recent years, with more modern technology, to prove such an unlikely occurrence? I have seen very little evidence to back up this story so I can't help but think this is just another Piltdown Man type of hoax. Please show me something that will make me change my mind. AlwynJPie ( talk) 14:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
But were tests done in more recent times with modern technology to confirm this unlikely event? If not, why not? And very strange how her reproductive system was still able to give birth to another baby in 1972, nearly 40 years after giving birth to her first. And not wanting to be interviewed makes me even more suspicious. AlwynJPie ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Flyer22. That would be very helpful. But I can't understand how others have just accepted this as fact and not challenged it. AlwynJPie ( talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we had to go with what WP:reliable sources say on this, the possibility of a hoax is already in the article, if there are more sources to support that point of view, they should be added. Please remember that this is the biography of a living person. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
AlwynJPie, the article includes several references including The Telegraph, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and a few other newspapers. By asserting that you "can't help but think this is just another Piltdown Man type of hoax", you are implying that these sources are unreliable, at least for the purpose of supporting the information in this article. I suspect that these newspaper reports are based partly on the papers published in La Presse Médicale.
"Please show me something that will make me change my mind." Have you read the references provided? I suspect that the papers in La Presse Médicale should be regarded as the most reliable. However the fact that these were published in 1939 makes them difficult to find.
Editors of the article have listed the sources. However they are not required to provide the content of the sources for you. Indeed, the content of the sources is probably copyrighted. The onus is upon you to seek out the sources for your own verification. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, regardless of the investigations that you have or have not carried out. However in the absence of sources that assert the event as a hoax, your opinion is less reliable than La Presse Médicale and the newspaper reports.
As an aside, there are other issues with this article. From "Documentation", paragraph 3: "Although the case was called a hoax by some, a number of doctors over the years have verified it based on biopsies, X rays of the fetal skeleton in utero, and photographs taken by the doctors caring for her." The reference provided is page 51 of The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation. However page 51 of that source does not support that statement. Also, there are several unreferenced statements in the article. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Do any modern experts believe this story? AlwynJPie ( talk) 00:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently deleted the photo of the naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again, because I cant't see any permission of her - the depicted person - to use that photo in wikipedia.-- Alice d25 ( talk) 12:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Well let's look at the NFCC stuff it's being used for, and the reasoning on why to use this non free image. It's pretty plain and simple to me. Lina Medina, being the worlds youngest mother, is not only a world record but a notable event in medical history. The image shows Lina when she was pregnant, a situation that is extremely rare for a girl that is five years old. The appearance of a five year old that is pregnant is unique and might be unimaginable to the average reader.
That sums it up, methinks. The fact that this is the youngest pregnant mother in the world at 5 years old and is the only documented incident of it ever happening in history I think is very much worthy of the image on this page and as such, the contextual significance and the detrimental understanding stems from this. It's a very huge and important event in medical history.
Tutelary (
talk)
20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Apropos to this conversation: meta:Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities: "Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: The image that is being debated is not child pornography in the least. And that Hammersoft is implying that it is child pornography is silly. Like I told Hammersoft above, "the naked child" argument does not fly in this case, as others have made clear above on this talk page, with even a comparison to the naked-child image used in the Virgin Killer article. Wikipedia has included images of naked children, from the Medina image, to the Virgin Killer image, to images concerning poverty and/or war for years now. And the only way that it is a problem is when it violates one of Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines, such as WP:GRATUITOUS. These images are not included as child pornography, and, as my participation at the Child pornography article/talk page and related topics show, I am against child pornography. These images are included to aid encyclopedic content. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
According to the article, Medina is still alive and she has consistently hid from media attention and refused requests for interviews and she and her family have refused money for this story. Also, at five years of age, she would have lacked ability to adequately consent to this nude photograph, as she obviously lacked ability to consent to sexual activity. It does seem striking that the media convention is to typically avoid even naming rape victims (particularly minors) but here it is being argued that we ought to display a nude photo, of a five year old rape victim, due to the interest factor of the nude picture in question showing her pregnant at such a young age as the result of child sexual assault. I think including this picture would raise BLP and other serious concerns. -- BoboMeowCat ( talk) 17:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I note that the mere existence of this thread on possible BLP issues has now been used as a reason to remove the image. That's very unethical, and very sad for Wikipedia. I really don't like the possible precedent being set here. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
My only concern here is BLP. If we have unequivocal permission from the subject, we should include the image. Absent that, we should not. And, if we ever do, the image should be way down in the article, well "below the fold", so it doesn't appear on the first screen that opens to the reader. (Principle of least surprise.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Zdawg1029 insists on adding the following sentence to the "First son and later life" section: "Medina gave birth to a son at the age of 5 years and 7 months via cesarean section, making her the youngest known women to give birth in history."
I reverted him twice on that addition, seen here and here, pointing out his typo of "women" and that the material is already mentioned in the lead and in the "Early life and development" section. Zdawg1029's argument is: "It is not redundant when the main purpose of the section is pointing out that fact. That's what the section is there for, to explain that. Plus the ces section isn't mentioned anywhere else." Not only has he reverted me twice, but he has refused to fix his typo, as if I am supposed to fix it for him. I ask others to look at the "Early life and development" section; the cesarean section aspect is already mentioned there, so is her age, and the fact that no other person has given birth that young. Therefore, it is entirely unnecessary and redundant to state "Medina gave birth to a son at the age of 5 years and 7 months via cesarean section, making her the youngest known women to give birth in history." in the "First son and later life" section. This is a relatively small article, and people (unless they have a serious memory problem) are not going to forget this bit after reading it in the lead/and or in the "Early life and development" section; so the third repeat is pointless.
I know that others are watching this talk page because of the picture debate from last year; if no one else watching this article/talk page weighs in on this dispute, I will take the matter to WP:Third opinion or restructure/rename the sections; it is silly to take this to WP:Third opinion. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I got a brilliant idea. How about both of you edit war until one of you gives up? BOTH of you are edit warring on this, and both of you need to work out the issue here on the talk page, rather than continue to edit war and bash each other in edit summaries. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add her modern photo-- Kaiyr ( talk) 13:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that an image could go in the information template, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to do it properly (without copyright infringement and such). JoshBM16 ( talk) 13:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The article states that there are only two published photographs, but there are several at http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/lina-medina-youngest-mother-1939/ claiming to be of her. (I don't think any of these would be useable on copyright grounds.) Almonaster ( talk) 23:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is she native American or metizo or Creole? -- 92.242.59.7 ( talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please, write about it in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олег Ключников ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Snopes reports that Lina Medina was 5 years, 7 months, 21 days old when she gave birth.
AnonymissOC ( talk) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "He died in 1979 at the age of 40, from either bone cancer or a bone marrow infection (varying sources).[2][1]" to "He died in 1979 at the age of 40, from either bone cancer or a bone marrow infection (varying sources).[citation needed]"
Neither given source mentions the cause of death of Gerardo Medina. 70.54.131.32 ( talk) 22:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change this: the the youngest known person in history to give birth. to this : the youngest known person in history to give birth. or this : the youngest known person in history to give birth. to avoid repetition of the word "the" 88.184.219.160 ( talk) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Extraneous 'the' removed. Thanks for finding that! --
Hammersoft (
talk)
15:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Could you help me, please? I'm trying to get this photo w:ru:File:Lina medina.jpg in fair use to be removed from the infobox in ruwiki version of this article. Is there any US law that prevents such photos? Thank you, IKhitron ( talk) 10:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
This information from other wikis about her death (added as easy as 2 years ago) was thoroughly investigated, see talk above, and it was concluded that other wikis are wrong. Therefore we don't need to litter the article top with useless tags. Non-English wikis, with rare exception such as German, are notoriously careless about checking their sources, and we don't have to indulge them. I undestand this tag may be very useful for cases recent deaths, but in our case, sorry, no reliable confirmation for many years already. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I cannot find a single source, but according to ruWikipedia and Wikidata (both without source), she has died November 8, 2015. Ivannah ( talk) 23:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This is actually untrue.It was actually true last year. As for sources cited by Flyer, they are without author nor any reputable refs given, hence low credibility. Sources of comparable "quality" (eg [10]) say "Hoy ella tiene 82 años" . Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in medical history"
to "is a Peruvian woman who became renowned as a child for being the youngest confirmed survivor of statutory rape to undergo childhood pregnancy and childbirth in medical history"
Because identifying the subject as simply the youngest mother is not being fully transparent; it glazes over the fact that Lina's pregnancy as a five year old was made possible only by grave sexual assault. Calling Lina a mother has positive connotations which I am certain are obvious to you, Reader. I suggest using the word "childbirth" as a more objective choice to identify a then-child giving birth to another child, without those connotations as they do not apply to Lina's case. Clarifyingedits ( talk) 21:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
answered=yes
back to answered=no
.
♪♫Al
ucard
16♫♪
05:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Edit summary: partial rv per WP:BDP. She isn't 115+ years old, and we have no sources confirming her death
The category name is not "Dead people", its name is "Living people", therefore for inclusion into it we must have references she is living, per WP:CATV. Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
. Do you have a cite from a reliable, secondary source that indicates she has died? If you don't, then this is nothing but speculation because she would be old now.- Did you read my reply? I am not adding category 'Dead people". If we do not know some fact for sure, we simply do not this fact in wikipedia. WP:BLP does not trump WP:V, it merely makes it more strict. All information in wikipedia article must be verifiable. is not disabled by WP:BLP. Therefore if you want to mark her as "living people" please provide a valid reference for this. The policy says "Unreferenced information may be removed at any time. You restored unreferenced information in vilation of the most basic wikipedia policy. WP:BDP does not say about category. Anyway, I have found appropriate category. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Identity of the father" section, footnote #9 needs to be removed as it refers to Hilda Trujillo, a girl who gave birth at the age of 9, and has nothing to do with Lina Medina. Wikicorrectorina ( talk) 07:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lina Medina has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
She was actually raped by an 35 year old man. She was playing hide and seek looking for her friend in an alley when she was raped. She was threatened to keep quiet. 2600:8800:3080:3EE8:3C72:9746:243E:BD6C ( talk) 21:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Is she native American or metizo or Creole?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
5 years old can not accurately be described as a "woman". Please correct this. 142.113.79.223 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
In this piece, it reads as though precocious puberty was the cause of this child’s pregnancy. Yes there is a sentence in one section about the father being held and then released on suspicion of child abuse. However, in the effort to be “just the facts” there is an absurd lacunae that ends up colluding with the abuse she clearly suffered. The cause of the pregnancy was child sexual abuse, not precocious puberty. 24.151.78.219 ( talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Lina Medina was a victim of sexual abuse. This article claiming that she was just experience "precocious puberty" is covering up what really happened to her, and is grossly insensitive towards both children's and women's rights and issues. Wikipedia is a source used by many people, and allowing such a dangerous thing to be promoted and misconstrued can result in potential abusers being misinformed and justifying their actions. "Well it's not rape, it's precocious puberty! I can assault children." 24.184.101.129 ( talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The four IP comments above stem from a fundamental misunderstanding. "Precocious puberty" is not meant as some subjective judgmental comment implying inappropriate sexual behavior, promiscuity, or consent for sex on the part of a child. Instead, precocious puberty is a purely biological condition in which puberty occurs at an unusually early age. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 23:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
5 years old can not accurately be described as a "woman". Please correct this. 142.113.79.223 ( talk) 21:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I read that she died seven years ago. Illang ( talk) 22:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)