Talk:Lina Medina

Circumstances of the pregnancy

It's not known how she became pregnant, and, as the article states, Mrs Medina herself recently refused an interview, so it's likely she just wants to put the whole thing behind her (which is understandable really, even though it's a pity not more is known about the case). -- Schnee 14:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Presumably, one of the reasons she doesn't like to talk about it is because of why she was promised a bunch of financial support from the government that she never got. So she's really bitter about it. (understandably so)--MythicFox 09:55, 10 March 2006 (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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.89.168 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 December 2005.

If there's one lesson an article like this reinforces, it's to not discount anything as impossible. That being said, I really doubt it's a case of fetus in fetu. Those generally just live somewhere inside the twin, leeching off of it, and are completely incapable of surviving otherwise (they generally are little more than brainless masses of tissue with a body part or two). On the other hand, in Medina's case, the child was removed via caesarian section, which suggests to me that the child was living in her womb (fetus in fetu just live wherever; it happens in male children as well, after all). More importantly than that, it was a viable human child, and not a barely recognizable lump of flesh. He lived, not only outside of the womb, but to adulthood. All in all, it looks like a normal (as normal as it can be at that age, at least) pregnancy. Kairos 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My mother was one such person, she had her "twin" remains removed from her womb (or somewhere around it...) at the age of about 38. It was a great topic of discussion within the family at the time! Aurora sword 09:54, 9 March 2007 (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)

There probably are a few, but frankly, I'm not terribly interested in researching that right now. For what it's worth, however, this happened in the 30s, and as a result is considerably more likely not to have been a crime (if I recall correctly, this sort of thing mostly became a concern in western countries, let alone other ones, in the late seventies). As I understand, the father was briefly jailed on suspicion of incest, not of child molestation specifically. Kairos 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste time on it. It was a purely rhetorical question linked to the naive sentence I removed from the article about "not knowing whether it was rape". alteripse 18:36, 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

I don't think it was necessarily rape(just seems like almost the entire Internet is jumping on the "RAPE" bandwagon). It's pretty common for children up till the age of 10 to climb into their parents' beds in the middle of the night. Assuming her parents were still carrying on sexual relations after she was born, she could have wound up on the "wet spot" and gotten pregnant after precocious puberty kicked in. Just a combination of unusual circumstances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.74 (talk • contribs)

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.

Photos

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? [1] or [2] alteripse 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can explain why you have a picture of a naked, pregnant 5-year-old on your computer, then I'd recommend uploading it :P Vitriol 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it didnt strike me as "that type" of image, but your point is well-taken. alteripse 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume it is not included because it could be considered a shocking image and Wikipedia seems to have a general policy (even if not an official policy) of not showing shocking images on pages. That being said, having a copy of that photograph is not illegal in most countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kuzain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 February 2006.

Wikipedia is not censored. The real reason the picture is not in the the article is because nobody has gotten around to do it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

ill do it Mirddes 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All done =D Mirddes 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Check out circumcision and Spy Magazine sometime. stubblyhead | ^T/_c 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fuwaaah........! Aurora sword 09:57, 9 March 2007 (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 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)

Clarification requested

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)

Who's the russian case then?

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)

It is the case of the girl who was six-year-old in 1930.ACSE 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

She was mentioned in the Urban Legends page. When quoting the Los Angeles Times, it says: "Dr De Lee cited the case of a Russian girl who became a mother at the age of 6 1/2." --turtleviolinist7 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In Russian Kf8 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Challenge For Guideline Violations

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. 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)

So basically we just have to directly cite the same references as the snoops article.. I'm not sure where you get off by saying this is a hoax because a few links were 404. Some other websites might have gotten information wrong, or not, but the snoops citations are enough on their own. You're also saying that this must be a hoax because you don't find reports in certain places that you expected to. I'm not really sure what your motive is, but I'll see what I can do to verify the snoops citations anyways. -- Ned Scott 08:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically he is pointing out that La Presse Medicale for 1939, which is the primary source for almost all the basic facts, is not readily available online, and therefore we have to take the repeated information on faith. No shit. The rest of the nonsense is a bunch of irrelevancies. I have no respect for new editiors with no contributions who leave this kind of non-constructive critcism. alteripse 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the issue is that, while the evidence that a young girl had a child appears to be certain, the evidence that she was in fact less than 6 years old is less reliable because of a possibly unknown birthdate, and the article does not address this issue. —Centrx→talk • 10:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

A verifiable, published account from a credible source that disputes popular reports: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,931268,00.html

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)

We run into the issue of determining age all the time for children adopted from third world countries. It is possible to make an estimate of a child's physical maturation but of course impossible to use that to verify exact chronologic age. So there may be no birth certificate to "prove" by exacting criteria her precise age. The 1939 Time article reflects the limited medical understanding of puberty at the time: the hypothalamic origin of control of puberty had not been confirmed in 1939, and there is an erroneous postulation of an ovarian tumor rather than a hypothalamic hamartoma, which is far more likely. Basically we do not know the cause of her precocity, only that the pregnancy proved it was not an ovarian tumor, but a fully function maturation of her reproductive system. Dental age has only a rough correlation to bone age and other aspects of physical maturation. The uncertainty of age is the same as when we evaluate newspaper accounts of the "oldest person in the world" in a society without birth certificates. My suspicion is that her birth would have been recorded in a baptismal registry in the village church and if she was originally not known to be pregnant when her parents took her to the hospital, why would they have reason to lie about her age? So please explain the motives for your over-the-top objections to this article. The evidence and reasoning you have provided might justify a change of phrase of the article to reflect our lack of document proof of age, but why didn't you just suggest that change? alteripse 12:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This article seriously needs to be balanced by the above Time Mag source. Anyone: BE BOLD. CyberAnth 06:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Medina's age

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. [3] [4] [5]

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). —Celithemis 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. —Celithemis 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Chilean journal version of the photo [6] does not show her eyes blacked out as does the version in the article. In medical journals and textbooks, nude photos were published with some obscuring of the face for anonymity, so the Chilean version may be from an earlier copy than the published one, and has more possibility of confirming identity with the other photo of her and her son. Edison 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

authenticity of Lina Medina

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)

It seems a well-documented case with NO reason to think it was fabricated or misrepresented. alteripse 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as the main reliable sources questioning the authenticity? Edison 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any reason to think it was fabricated or misrepresented. In the last hundred years we probably expect at least one six sigma deviation, a lot more if age at which one can first conceive is not Gaussianly distributed, and so something like this isn't crazy given we inspect almost every case. WilyD 14:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Useful Information

Would the information from the bottom of this page [7] 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)

• Sure, the article is about her, not just her getting knocked up. If someone reliable decides to publish it it is probably appropriate for inclusion. WilyD 19:58, 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.

Could the picture be illegal?

Could the picture of her pregnant be considered child pornography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RasenganController (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Legality would depend on your jurisdiction, but for our purposes we're doing this in Florida or California. In this case, consult a lawyer always, but the purpose of photographs is relevant to whether they're pornographic, and here the purpose is pretty clearly not "titalation". Compare to all the photos your parents have of you naked as a baby. WilyD 13:14, 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)

• Tu quoque.

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)

It's probably irrelevant that it's from 1938 (it's not the laws of that time that matter, but the laws today), and whether Wikipedia has policies about it - WP policy has no bearing on whether something is legal or not. But anyway, WilyD's argument makes sense - to equate all nude photos of children with child pornography would be ridiculous (and could lead to, for example, doctors being accused of a crime for making medical scans or photos). Destynova (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a nude photo of a child rape victim. How is that not objectionable? Edison (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't confirmed if she was raped. And it is questionable, you see many people arguing here about it. 95.49.70.32 (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Too young to give consent, thus raped. Edison (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Too young to give consent by todays legal standards.--95.34.38.161 (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, it purely surves as a source of informational meterial. Virgin Killer is a good, more extreme example of this, showing that pistures' place on Wikipedia are not based on editors opinion of the content but rather it's relevence as a piece of information. Furthermore, this picture in not technically considered pornography, as she is not doing anything sexual in the picture. Robo37 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2011 (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)

Merger proposal

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)

FWIW, I support. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist, and I never see the vandalism, just you fixing it. So your support is worth a lot, at least to me. Cheers, CP 02:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have performed the merge, although the term "merge" is a loose one, since all the information was already here, except some unsourced accusations that were potential WP:BLP violations. Cheers, CP 16:44, 15 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)

Links to other Wikipedia pages

In the first line of the first paragraph, "youngest confirmed mother" should link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.37.55 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

status

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)

Please provide a link to this noticeboard.--Auric (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the picture since it looked like a typical blanking (you left the caption) and only read your post after. Sorry.--Auric (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2013

Please remove picture of naked child as this is child pornography. 76.209.86.198 (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: See the section Could the picture be illegal? above.--Auric talk 13:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly can a photo of a child be illegal? If you see all photos of naked children as pornography you are in need of help, my friend.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2013

112.205.200.17 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Blank request.--Auric talk 15:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2013

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)

Done Statement removed by Kuyabribri (talk · contribs).--Auric talk 14:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done. I have removed that entire sentence as per your good-faith challenge to uncited information on living persons, and because the one source on that sentence was a page on fanpop.com, which is a user-generated site and therefore not a reliable source. I have no prejudice against re-inserting any of this content if and only if it can be attributed to a reliable source. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

inappropriate/child porn pic

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)

A naked child ≠ child pornography. Also, see the discussion above at #Could the picture be illegal? — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Measurement of child

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

Lina Medina Probaly was died

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)

Rare and unusual, one time only ever!!!!!

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)

I tweaked the text (followup edit here). Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014

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)

See the #inappropriate/child porn pic section above. Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A Hoax?

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)

AlwynJPie, there are no WP:Reliable sources that I have come across indicating that the Lina Medina case is a hoax. You can post about this matter at WP:Med, and point them to this section to weigh in on the case. Precocious puberty is certainly real, and Medina seems to have had an extreme case of it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:27, 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)

AlwynJPie, I reverted your addition of "allegedly" here. All we have to do is go by the WP:Reliable sources on this matter. Like I stated when reverting you, "There is no reason to use 'allegedly' when we have WP:Reliable sources, such as Time, confirming [the pregnancy]." Without WP:Reliable sources calling the pregnancy a hoax, the word allegedly should not be added. I already suggested that you take this matter to WP:Med. If you persist in challenging this information, without taking it to WP:Med, then I will take this matter there so that they might weigh in on it. You can also go through another form of WP:Dispute resolution. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 30 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)

I'll get around to asking WP:Med to weigh in on it, and I'll provide a diff-link here showing that I have.

Also, if you don't want your IP address to remain in the talk page edit history, you can request WP:Oversight for it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:01, 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 see that you took the matter to WP:Med; that's good. Flyer22 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I commented there here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

We're stuck with whatever the reliable sources say. If you can find sources that say this is a hoax, then please present them. If it's just your own personal opinion, then that can't be added to the article at all, because it would violate the WP:No original research policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 9 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)

Well... we may have to pull that. The cited source mentions Medina, but says nothing about fetal X-rays or the possibility of it being a hoax. Flyer, do you have time to sort through the article history to see whether the cited source was added at the same time as the stuff about hoaxes and biopsies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed that regarding the X-rays mention in the article; I checked that source for the first time several days ago, and I didn't know what to make of why that source was used for that bit. Perhaps someone added on to the original text, to the point where the source no longer supported it in full. Whatever the case, I figured that I would take care of it later on or that it would be sorted out once more WP:Med members joined this discussion. After all, there are other sources in the article and some unused sources as well. I'll see about remedying that X-rays part later on today. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 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)

Precocious puberty

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)

33 year age gap between successive births.

Is this not a record too? Assuming, of course, that it is true.AlwynJPie (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again

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)

Like I stated at your talk page after warning you about violations of WP:Censored and WP:Edit warring, you do not know what you are talking about in this case, and that's because you are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. For example, its policy on images; see Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Images. For the vast majority of pictures of living and dead people on Wikipedia, no permission was given by those people or their relatives for use of those images on Wikipedia. You think Scarlett Johansson gave permission for all the images used in her Wikipedia article to be used there? You would be incorrect to assume so. I think that it's easy to see why you are reverting in this case; it's for the same insufficient reason that others have removed the image. With your first removal of the image, you called the image "degrading." In my opinion, the image is not degrading, but is rather the only visual proof of a matter that many people find even more difficult to believe without an image showing it. You reverted again, after the warning I gave you. Your post above does not justify removal of the image. I will alert WP:Med to this matter and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, which is more active than Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. And if the WP:Consensus here on the article talk page is to restore the image, it will be restored. Or, because your removal of the image is not based on a Wikipedia policy or guideline, someone might revert you on the matter in the absence of a clear WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the image in question. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)