Talk:Lina Medina/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

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)

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. 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)

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)

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. [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). —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 [4] 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)

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)

Circumstances of the pregnancy

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)

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 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)

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)

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.

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 [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)

• 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.

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? [6] or [7] 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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 [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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As noted in the section immediately above this one, I tweaked that material. Flyer22 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 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)

Okay, WhatamIdoing and Axl, I finally sourced the X-ray and biopsy parts, and cleaned up some matters in the article. The sources I added, however, do not address the hoax aspect. I'll likely soon add a WP:Reliable source for the hoax suspicions. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The Snopes.com source also addresses the medical confirmation aspect; so I duplicated its WP:REFNAME for that material (fix here). Flyer22 (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do any modern experts believe this story? AlwynJPie (talk) 00:58, 10 November 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)

I alerted the aforementioned pages, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Pretty confident that unless the image was one of detailed medical discussion, there are both taste ("principle of least surprise" concept here, not so much censorship) and NFCC#8 issues that will prevent this picture from being used. --05:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem, as the article shows and as indicated in the #A Hoax? discussion above, the article concerns a medical matter -- a highly unusual medical matter. And the only visual proof that Wikipedia has of it is the aforementioned picture. I don't think that the WP:Least essay and WP:GRATUITOUS guideline are valid in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable printed sources are what we rely on for verifyability, not photographic evidence (or in this case, that photograph might be published in a reliable source). Particularly if the claims include "youngest pregnant female" and "at age 5" , which a photograph is simply not going to show. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Masem (last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume you will keep checking back here if you want to read replies), you stated WP:NFCC#8 will "prevent this picture from being used." I don't see how that is the case at all. WP:NFCC#8 states: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I don't see how it can be argued that the picture in question does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and that its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. Clearly, by the #A Hoax? discussion above and similar discussions above, this is a topic that people have a more difficult time believing without visual proof. A picture in this case does say a 1000 words. I can't be convinced otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not our problem if printed reliable sources have stated this is true, and people don't believe it. The sources given suggest strong RSes, so it should not be a doubt there, and if the readers do, that's beyond WP's capabilities. Additionally, with photoshop and other manipulation tools, photographic evidence is not all that that is nowadays. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the editor that I and others debated in the #A Hoax? discussion above shows that the editor has doubts even with the picture. Still, in my opinion, given that it's common for people to not believe that a 5-year-old could become pregnant, as shown by discussions above and posts at Talk:List of youngest birth mothers, despite precocious puberty being mentioned and/or explained to them, the aforementioned picture helps aid this topic. Either way, I will abide by the WP:Consensus that is formed on this issue...if any is formed. Flyer22 (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with Masem. There are substantial reliable sources proving this case is not a hoax. A photograph is not going to further enhance this. If reads are still incredulous despite reliable sources, an image isn't going to help that. Further, the inclusion of a naked child is flat not necessary. I note that the Precocious puberty article does not have any images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the fact that the Precocious puberty article does not have any images to the matter of including or excluding the aforementioned Medina image is like comparing apples and oranges. Not a good WP:Other stuff exists argument in the least. And neither is "the naked child" argument, 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. Furthermore, the Precocious puberty article should have diagrams and/or X-rays to help explain precocious puberty. And if we had whatever X-ray images that were taken of Medina to confirm her pregnancy, I would rather those be used instead of the aforementioned image; but we don't have those images. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Image use policy: "Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy." - there's nothing more for me to explain. or do I still have to explain "privacy"? and that people in Peru in 1939 usually didn't go out naked?--Alice d25 (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of Wikipedia policy is faulty, so I'd rather you not attempt to explain it any further. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Even assuming there's no legality issues with the picture (per Hammersoft's point), the principle of least surprise works here: this is a bio page - so a reader coming here is not going to be expected to be seeing a naked child picture. On precocious puberty, perhaps, but not here. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:Least is not a valid argument for this case, in my opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Alice. Look, the only reason you're apparently arguing for the inclusion of the image is to prove she was pregnant at 5. The image doesn't do that. First, an image doesn't prove her age, other than being a child. Second, do you presume this child is pregnant? Even if you still believe the image proves a five year old was pregnant, it brings nothing to the article that the reputable cites within the article that already prove it don't. The image adds nothing to the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's already clear that you agree with Alice. And I still disagree with you both. For one, stating that the image adds nothing to the article won't fly with me at all, for reasons I've already stated above in this section. For two, the image is supported by WP:Reliable sources. It surely is not a photoshopped matter, a matter that did not exist all those years ago. And if the article included extensive detail about the image, which it can, there would be no solid ground to remove it...per the #9 listing at WP:NFCI. Heck, even the #8 listing at WP:NFCI is a pass for the image. For three, that image is not private in the least, and is used in various non-Wikipedia articles, including news articles, regarding Medina; it was publicized when medical experts were first reporting on her pregnancy. I'm certain that she's well aware of this. If she were interested in keeping that image from continuing to be posted, she would have sought to do so and I'm sure we would know that she sought to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Above you stated I can't be convinced otherwise. I agree. As is, three people are in disagreement with you and have stated clear reasons why. You disagree, and none agree with you. That's fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep. And now I await more opinions. This is not a highly active talk page, and, therefore, discussions at this talk page clearly stick around for years. I might even start a WP:RfC on the matter. Think that if I advertise this matter well enough, no one will agree with me? I highly doubt it, especially given what has been stated about retaining the image by others above on the talk page, and, since many Wikipedia editors base image inclusion on merit rather than on "Oh, that offends me." Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To be firm about this, I do believe in its own right that the image is an encyclopedic benefit for the page and necessary to fully understand the context of the event that occured to the subject. The comparisons to child pornography are not appreciated in the least and at most, are patently offensive to this discussion. In addendum, your personal feelings do not regard whether or not we have the image on this page, per WP:NOTCENSORED. It's to be argued with policy and content related arguments, not on whether you consider it offensive or not. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you feel the way you do regarding my supposed stance. It's inaccurate, but I'm not interested in attempting to change your belief. You posted to WT:NFC looking for more opinions. I think you were looking for opinions that agreed with you. I'm sorry you're upset that my opinion and those of everyone else who has commented so far do not agree with your opinion. Since it's clear you're unwilling to be moved by expressed opinions of others, there's really nothing for me nor anyone else to say on the matter. It is obvious that reasoned discourse is not what is wanted here. This isn't a battleground, but you've set it up as one, which is quite unfortunate. Given this, the best way forward appears to be a straight vote. Of course, if you disagree with that, I'm not going to attempt to change your opinion on that point either. You're quite welcome to put that recommendation in the circular file along with every other opinion that disagrees with you. I hope you have a nice day. I really do. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Part of your stance is that "the inclusion of a naked child is flat not necessary." So I see nothing as supposed regarding my view of your stance. And as many at this site know, when I post for outside opinions, I am not only looking for opinions that agree with my opinion...unless, of course, it's a matter that concerns a violation of a Wikipedia policy and/or guideline and needs to be immediately squashed because of a WP:Disruptive editor. But when people seek outside opinions, they usually are partly looking for people who might agree with them. You know that. Let's not play dumb. And, for me, when people express content arguments that I find invalid, especially ones not supported by a Wikipedia policy or a guideline, I am likely to state the matter as such. Disagreeing with people and standing by one's opinion does not mean that the person is not open to hearing others' opinions. I highly doubt that you will be changing your mind on including the image in question, no matter what argument is put forth for including it, such as the "significant text discussing the image" angle I suggested above. So criticizing me in the way that you have in your "15:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)" post above is hypocritical. If you did not view this discussion as a battleground, per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, then perhaps you should have thought better of your snippy "15:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)" post above. As soon as I saw you post to this discussion, and knowing your edit history, I knew that discussing with you would not be pleasant. I am perceptive, after all. Thanks for proving me right. WP:Consensus is not a vote, by the way; surely, you know that. But vote away, if you like. Flyer22 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I got as far as "let's not play dumb". We're done here. I have nothing further to say to you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope that I am done discussing this matter with you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• You are. I hope that pleases you. Regardless, this does not preclude me from commenting further on this talk page. I'm sorry if that displeases you. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As shown here, I've been confusing you with another editor whose username starts with an H. So I struck through part of my "16:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)" post above. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As for you continuing to post in this discussion, I hardly care...as long as you are not repeating the same things to me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 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)

I completely agree. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The ability of the reader to visualize it does not override BLP. Once Medina dies, add the picture back in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if NFCC are met, but a very good case can be made they are. Frankly, I don't really care. We shouldn't host this picture, because we should respect the privacy of Medina, even if others don't. It's the decent thing to do. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Terms of use

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)

• Thank you for stating that I am being silly. That brings considerable light to the conversation. Most welcome. As noted above, I don't expect to change your opinion on anything. The reason I included the link to the terms of use is that it is apropos to the conversation here. I'm sorry you apparently disagree. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I disagree. I do not take kindly to people suggesting that I am supporting child pornography, especially since I've been quite vocal on Wikipedia regarding it. In a well known case, I was one of the people responsible for having an editor who was problematic on child sexuality topics and other sexual topics...topic-banned. So, yes, I disagree with any implication that I support child pornography. As others have stated on this talk page before, a naked child does not automatically equate to child pornography. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I never said you supported child pornography nor did I ever mean to imply that you did. I believe the terms of use are apropos here. That doesn't mean to imply anything with regards to you. I never linked you with the terms of use, never said you had any connection to it, never said you were operating against it, with it, or any other connection whatsoever. Given the subject matter at hand, that of a naked child, the terms of use may be of some interest to readers of this discussion. I know you disagree. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

From my point of view, starting this "Terms of use" section in the way that you did...without clarification of what you state you meant by it...was a way to imply that the image is child pornography and should be removed because of that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• You are welcome to your point of view. It's not what I meant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

When you say it's 'appropriate' for this conversation and link to stuff about child pornography, and then say that saying that the image isn't child pornography, it's kind of like linking to 'WP:TE' and say 'I think this is appropriate for you to see'. That's a heavy implication that what you linked is what you intended. Tutelary (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The image is not child pornography (IMO), but there is definitely a privacy issue here. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No matter how much Hammersoft denies it, this thread IS accusing those supporting inclusion of this image of supporting child pornography. That is clearly nonsense, and a very unethical debating strategy. The image is a medical one. It's NOT child pornography. Can Hammersoft please defuse this whole thread by clearly acknowledging that the image is NOT child pornography? Here. I'll make it easy for you. Hammersoft, is the image child pornography? HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't come in here to accuse anyone of anything. Back off. SOME people might find it relevant, which is why I posted the link here. If we are to have that image here, it would be a fantastic idea to clear it against that passage in the terms of use, and have something to reference in case anyone objects to it. I am ___HELPING___ the process dammit. Good grief. ENOUGH already. As to the "medical" nature of this image; a picture of a pregnant child doesn't prove the child is pregnant, . As the image I linked above shows, a child can readily have other conditions which visually would mimic pregnancy. The image proves nothing. There's a large array of conditions that can cause severe abdominal bloating. Is this person pregnant? How can you be sure either way, given just the image? How about this child? Pregnant or no? How can you be certain? And what about the children in the front row of this picture? Are they pregnant or not? The image proves absolutely nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I won't back off. You said it was child pornography in response to another editor's post in support of including it, and you're now avoiding the question. This is simple for you to defuse. Is the image child pornography? HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I pointed you to the WP:AGF guideline. Since you insist upon putting words into my mouth that I have already refuted, since you insist on not abiding by expected behavioral guidelines here, I will not be responding to you further. Feel free to take that however you like. I frankly don't care, and have no further interest in you. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

BLP and other concerns

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)

• There's a discussion above about the legality of the picture (see Talk:Lina_Medina#Could_the_picture_be_illegal.3F). Within that, there's an assertion that Ms. Medina may have been legally able to give consent given the laws of the time (1938/39). I find this assertion vacuous. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: Good points, BoboMeowCat. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Due to recent edit warring of photo back into article, I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard for additional opinions.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a pretty clear privacy issue here. Do we have any evidence whatsoever that Medina consented to publication of this photograph? Yes, I know we have photographs of celebrities on Wikipedia without consent, but the standards are very different for public figures. Non-public figures are entitled to greater deference to their privacy, especially when it involves a nude or potentially embarrassing photograph. This is clearly reflected in the BLP policy (if not in exact words, then certainly in spirit). Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this photo adds sufficiently to this article to include when it appears that she would prefer it not to be. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a first in medical history that a 5 year old has gotten pregnant and this image is the only testament to that. Where is the statement or source that she didn't want such to be here? Regardless, I believe it adds enough to the article to waive any concerns since it's the only documented medical anomaly of this happening...ever. Tutelary (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan says "She would prefer it not to be"? Really? We don't know that. Please stop speculating, all of you. The photo is 80 years old, from a country, time, legal structure and culture most of us know little about. The photo exists. It has been published elsewhere. Legality would therefore be unlikely to be an issue. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The image isn't the only testament to that - the references included in the article are what we need, and the picture doesn't give us anything else. And I don't know for sure that she doesn't care to have the picture published, but given the discussion above, it seems likely. Since this is a BLP issue, we need to lean on the side of privacy unless there's an equally compelling reason not to. It's not illegal to include the photo - it's just not a good idea at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:50, 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)

The precedent isn't being set here - it was set long ago in WP:BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

So if ever I want an image removed from an article, for whatever reasons, I just start a thread suggesting it's a breach of BLP, and take it out. Stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 you're playing stupid again. You know that's not how it works. Multiple users have raised serious BLP policy concerns here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, show me the policy that explains how it works. Or is it just bullying by the masses? HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. No opinion on this case. Do have concerns that expecting all images to have passed current Western conceptions of what is suitable consent would more or less result in the deletion of all images of identifiable people that are more than 5 years old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• BLP noticeboard consensus - The BLP noticeboard consensus was to omit the photo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Photograph_of_naked.2C_pregnant_five-year-old_Lina_Medina --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is a WP:Permalink to the discussion. The matter was also addressed at WP:Feminism, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly that "consensus" was more of a vote than a discussion, where others' points of view are considered. Those who "won" included the editors who declared that the image was child pornography, and those who wanted to protect this lady's dignity. Again sadly, it's a little late for that. This image is freely available in many sources all over the world. If quality of argument is what makes consensus, I'm not convinced. But we can all move on now I guess. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:STICK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you realise how pointless that post is? Have a little think. Do you really think it's likely to convince me I'm wrong? Are you pleased that an editor who called that image child pornography now feels vindicated? That's sick. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: I respect you as an editor and made that post as a sort of WP:TROUT. We get that you disagree with the consensus of the BLPN. You win some you lose some. I really don't see this particular issue as being that large in the grand scheme and think you are getting a bit too caught up in it. Who cares what that editor thinks? No one is validating their position. The BLPN had nothing to do with child pornography and anyone with even an inkling of knowledge on US pornography laws knows this is not pornographic. But again, who cares what one editor thinks about one image. Let them go waste their breath on lolicon or something. We got tons of other articles to edit, tons of vandalism to revert, and tons of other dumb arguments to engage in. Our futures are bright. Let us find them! While I'm being a bit silly, I'm not being sarcastic. Just so the tone is clear. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually can accept that close. (I can't call it a consensus.) The more I think about, what I didn't like was the shallow wording from the closing Admin. He made it read like it was a vote, and didn't appear to have seriously considered many of the arguments. He certainly didn't constructively comment on them, after what was quite a long thread with many issues discussed. That's disappointing. I have seen much better, and on a sensitive issue this time round, it wasn't good enough. You may realise that I'm not a fan of many of our Administrators. Talent level is too low for too many of them, and too many are POV pushers who abuse their powers. The latter didn't seem to apply this time, but the former did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:51, 9 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)

Redundancy regarding birth, age and legacy

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)

Dude, we are talking about one sentence here, one sentence. Yes it states that she gave birth at 5 years and 7 months in the lead of the article, but this section is specifically talking about her first son. The sentence simply sets up what is being talked about. What if someone comes to the article and goes right to that section because they don't want to read the entire thing? The only reason this women has a wiki page is because of that fact. And plus it doesn't mention anywhere else that it was a cesarean section.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely that someone would not see the birth aspect that is in the lead. And, again, this is a relatively small article. So, again, what you added was unnecessary and your typo of "women" should have been "woman." Minutes ago, before reading what you stated above, I changed the structure of the article so that unnecessary redundancy is not there. One repeat is enough. Followup edit (rather WP:Dummy notes) here and here.

You have a tendency to WP:Edit war; for example, at the Michael Jackson article. In the future, consider forgoing immediately WP:Edit warring; instead, take the matter to the talk page to discuss it when you are reverted once and especially if you are reverted twice. WP:BRD often works. Flyer22 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep going on about the "woman" type-o, which is easily fixed, and now you want to make a major change to the article without consideration from anyone else. All I did was add one sentence. You are now trying to get rid of the very section that is the very reason she has a wiki page. I think you just want to be "right", which in this case you are unfortunately not. The article was fine how it was. And it sort of seems as if you are the one starting an edit war. Would you like me to point out multiple examples of articles that has info in the lead that is repeated in the specific section about it? Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You keep WP:Edit warring for no valid reason; minutes ago, you reverted to this mess of a version after my further cleanup of the article. Again, that version has unnecessary redundancy, a silly typo, more unnecessary poor formatting, unnecessary unsourced material (and, by that, I mean that I easily sourced material using sources existing in the article), and it has a WP:See also violation (the List of youngest birth mothers article). And I am the one who formatted parts of those life sections -- the version you reverted to. And now that I have improved that content, per your unnecessary redundancy, you want to wholesale revert to the worse version. I am, in fact, right in this case, and you are now engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. You often do engage in WP:Disruptive editing. What you state in this version of your user page about irritating a lot people? That's because of your WP:Disruptive editing.

Auric, SarekOfVulcan, EvergreenFir and Anthonyhcole, are you still watching this article? Can we get your opinions on this matter so that I do not have to take this to WP:Third opinion or start a WP:RfC on it? Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And you stated, "You keep going on about the 'woman' type-o, which is easily fixed." Exactly! You should have fixed it instead of expecting me or others to fix it. And I've been clear on what else needs fixing in the version you keep reverting to. There is no valid reason at all to have the cesarean/birth content in two different sections. I placed that content in one section, and better formatted it, and I better formatted the section that is half about the identity of the man who impregnated Medina; this includes renaming that section. Flyer22 (talk) 18:28, 6 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)

If I was optimistic about working anything out with Zdawg1029 on this matter, I would not have been quick to cite WP:Third opinion in my first post in this section. Nor would I have called four editors to weigh in. I am familiar with how Zdawg1029 edits, as noted above. He is more prone to WP:Edit war than to discussion, and it's often that his WP:Edit warring is seemingly just to irritate. My "02:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)" edit above was my attempt at working things out with him -- a compromise. Beyond that, I don't see why I should compromise, given what I stated about the formatting. The article is poor regardless, but it certainly does not need to be any poorer. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'm sure reverting him again will bring about the solution you desire. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The same goes for your unhelpful remarks, which only seem like snark rolled up into would-be wise counsel; and all because of the past heated words you and I exchanged on this talk page. There is a reason that I did not call for you above. But no matter. If starting a WP:Third opinion or WP:RfC will see that I get "the solution [I] desire," then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't remember us interacting on this page before. You may call my comments snarky, but it _is_ intended to be helpful and not demeaning of you. It dramatically highlights why another revert isn't going to get you what you want (should he revert you again). Edit warring solves nothing when both parties are determined to revert the other. Don't like it? *shrug* Truth. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy that you "don't remember us interacting on this page before." And I don't need a lesson in WP:Edit warring. When I am reverted once or twice, I take things to the talk page, as I did above. I am not a no-revert person. In the case of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, I only revert when I think it is necessary, not for the "don't revert" reasons that essay lays out. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I re-read the conversation previously where we interacted, and I am now reminded of the conversation we had back last fall. I'm sorry I do not have a perfect memory, and I'm sorry you feel I'm lying about it. I interact with hundreds if not thousands of editors here. It's rather unlikely I could remember every conversation, every psuedonym, of every editor I've interacted with. A relative of mine has an eidetic memory. I do not. *shrug* I don't care if you think I was lying. I'm not. What I do care about is that you and I have a track record of not being able to work together in a collegial manner. I said in the prior discussion and will re-iterate here; we're done here. I have nothing further to say to you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• The redundancy is a problem. The re-arrangement Flyer22 is presently experimenting with on the article - or something like that - looks like the way to go. Zdawg1029, are you OK with Flyer's solution now? If not, can you propose something here, rather than reverting Flyer's edits, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

No. Why are you trying to get rid of the very section that the article is about? The ONLY reason this women has an article is because of the age she was when she gave birth, and now we are getting rid of the section entirely? And the only redundancy (and calling it redundant is a stretch considering it is the main point of the article) is repeating the line "she was 5 year and 7 months". There is no redundancy in ANY of the ONE sentence I added. Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Jesus fine do whatever you wish if you're going to cry about it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 07:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Zdawg1029, I don't understand your arguments on this matter. The text you added was redundant for reasons I've mentioned above. I am not "trying to get rid of the very section that the article is about," and I did not get rid of the section. As noted above, I moved the cesarean/birth content to the section that is already discussing that so that it is not repeated in two different sections that Medina had a cesarean section/gave birth. Also, the fact that no other person has given birth so young was already clear in the section that I moved the cesarean section/gave birth content to. Plus, that she is the youngest person to give birth is also made clear in the Documentation section. This article needs more rearranging partly because of that section. I was clear above that "I placed [the cesarean/birth content] in one section, and better formatted it, and I better formatted the section that is half about the identity of the man who impregnated Medina; this includes renaming that section." Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is not about her first son. It is about a person who gave birth at an extremely young age -- the youngest person to give birth. The article explores that, and notes her first son. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The info is in the lead, but doesn't the lead summarize the article? I'd expect see the info repeated or restated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

But the cesarean section/gave birth aspect was repeated, and otherwise made clear, in two different sections; that's been one of my main points above. I stated above that one repeat is enough. Flyer22 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you all want to go into a such in depth argument over something so stupid as repeating her age in the section about it, which is like 4 words. But as I said, do whatever you want, I don't care at this point. Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"You all" includes you; you helped to needlessly drag this matter out. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Modern photo

Please add her modern photo--Kaiyr (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Kaiyr, which photograph? If you mean the one of her where she is naked and pregnant, the one easily found by Googling the topic Lina Medina, that's a no-go; see the #34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again section above. Some editors view the matter as a WP:BLP problem; other editors view it as child porn even though it's not. And then there's the arguments in between. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean photo where she is old or adult--Kaiyr (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Kaiyr, where is such a photograph? Also, it has to be a free image; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for what I mean. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Image needed?

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)

JoshBM16 (talk · contribs), it has to be a free image; see Wikipedia:Non-free content for what I mean. And using the image showing her pregnant belly is a no-go, per Talk:Lina Medina/Archive 1#34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 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)

Ethnicity or race

Is she native American or metizo or Creole? --92.242.59.7 (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

She died November 8, 2015

Please, write about it in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Олег Ключников (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In a quick search, I didn't find any news sources reporting that. Please also see previous discussion above. The Talk page archive also contains an unsourced comment saying "Probably Lina Medina was died on 21st November, 2013. not sure." —BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Lina Medina's age when she gave birth.

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)

References

That source provides her exact age at the time of the birth of her child (5 years, 7 months, 21 days) and the exact date of her child's birth (14 May 1939), but not the date of her birth. The article provides a date for her birth (27 September 1933), but it is unsourced and it seems to mathematically conflict with the other two dates. Pending some other cited source, I will change the date shown for her birth to subtract 4 days, so that the math works properly. I found a mention of a source for her birth date as 27 September in the Talk page archives (http://youngest_mother.tripod.com/), but it seems less reliable than Snopes. Tripod.com is a site that hosts amateur self-published unreliable content. The cited Telegraph article matches Snopes for her age when she gave birth. The cited Time article says she was six years and five months old when she gave birth (and it cites a Time article of May 29, 1939 as its source for that, which is probably less reliable than Snopes and Telegraph). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2017

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)

Partly done:. Rather than bother with keeping the unverified content and tagging it, I went ahead and removed the last clause of the sentence. If someone can find a reliable source for cause of death, they can add it back in. Thanks for pointing this out. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 19:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

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)

Child abuse

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)

Currently the file is unused and has a deletion notice. That should be sufficient.--Auric talk 12:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, but it is included to and excluded from the page all the time. See recent changes. IKhitron (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading the previous discussions about the image, now seen at Talk:Lina Medina/Archive 1. A big one was Talk:Lina Medina/Archive 1#34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Tag about proclaimed death in other wikis

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)

P.S. : 13:14, 5 August 2017‎ Neve-selbert (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,794 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Undid revision 786461864 by Staszek Lem (talk) dead according to the Russia wiki)

Well, I double checked ru:wiki and see that her death date was added several times by anons and quickly reverted. So the confirmation of our basic rule once again: DON'T TRUST WIKIS EVER.Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I concur as well. Given that she has wanted to remain out of the public eye and not granting interviews, it is possible we will never have a reliable source indicating she has passed away. If that be the case, then the principal of 115 years of age from WP:BDP applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Has she died?

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)

• http://rutube.ru/video/7873db954017500244ab55c6c73a2b18/ --Kaiyr (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted. Use a WP:Reliable source instead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.kp.ru/daily/26483/3353145/ http://newsbuzz.ru/archives/10189 --Kaiyr (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Your sources are non-English sources. I can't read them, and don't know how reliable they are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

newsbuzz.ru is 100% unreliable - this site just recycles the internets. kp.ru is a more 'mainstream' source, but it is unclear how to verify its info: a Russian source for Peruvian events? I would rather doubt. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a single Spanish-language source speaks of her death. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Staszek Lem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is actually untrue. Here are some Spanish-language sources listing November 8, 2015 as her date of death: [8], [9]. So the only question remaining is whether they are credible enough. --Deinocheirus (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd say not. They look like Buzzfeed minus the legitimate news stories. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:02, 20 June 2017 (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)

I didn't cite those sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant mentioned by Deinocheirus above. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: We cannot believe your source also only because they are not saying what is it "now". May be their information is 2 years old. --Infovarius (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Why pinging me? I did not cite any sources. Also, this talk was a year ago. What information do you want to add to the article? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2018

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)

Per our policies WP:CITE, WP:RS, please provide references to reliable sources which describe Lina Medina in this or similar way. Please understand that wikipedians are not allowed to express their opinions in wikipedia articles no matter how correct they are. Instead, Wikipedians faithfully summarize information found in reliable sources. And yes she was mother. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Note: Changed template not answered to answered based on reply from Staszek Lem. If anything changes with this particular request please feel free to change answered=yes back to answered=no. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 05:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

While I understand the sentiment behind the request here, I think it's important to point out that statutory rape is a particular legal term that only has meaning an applicability in a very limited range of the world's jurisdictions. I'm pretty sure it has no meaning in my country nor, probably, in Peru. We must take care not to apply the mores and laws of one country when discussing happenings in another. HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion and resources, I recommend to change "is a Peruvian woman who became the youngest confirmed mother in history, giving birth at age five years, seven months, and 21 days" to: "is a Peruvian woman who became known in 1939 for being the youngest child who gave birth as a result of rape. Medina gave birth to a healthy son at five years, seven months, and 21 days old, subsequently making Medina the youngest confirmed mother in history." Changes based on the description in the following source where obstetrician Rolando Colareta discusses 'rape of minors' in relation to pregnancy in children, another case of a child who gave birth, while Medina is mentioned as his previous patient in the article. "In November Hilda entered the Maternity Hospital as the patient of Obstetrician Rolando Colareta, underwent examination by a team of 16 obstetricians, gland specialists, radiologists, psychiatrists and general practitioners. They reported her to be normal, only a little older-looking than other girls of her age. Explained Colareta: "The rape of minors is nothing so unusual here or anywhere else. But of course rape does not mean pregnancy in children so young except in rare cases." In 30 years as an obstetrician he had seen four such cases in girls under eleven; Hilda Trujillo was only the second youngest. Eighteen years before he assisted in the case of the youngest: Lina Medina, pregnant at the age of five years, eight months; mother, by Caesarean section, of a normal boy at the age of six years, five months (TIME, May 29, 1939)." PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the phrasing "the youngest child who gave birth as a result of rape" would seem to imply that there was some younger child who gave birth that was not the result of a rape, which is rather strange. She was the youngest person known to have ever given birth, full stop. Also, this seems like a bit of an attempt to insert unnecessary judgmental editorial commentary into the article, and if I understand correctly, the exact circumstances of how she became pregnant were never determined. I suggest not to do this. I think it is also rather obvious to most readers that the pregnancy of a four-to-five year old child would probably involve some highly inappropriate behavior by someone else. It is not necessary to say that explicitly in the lead section. The body of the article already contains a discussion of an allegation of rape. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Category:Living people

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)

• Any supposition that Lina Medina is dead is just that; supposition. We have no confirmed sources anywhere that she is in fact dead. As WP:BDP notes, there is a presumption someone is dead at 115 unless sources indicate otherwise. We have proof that she at least was in fact alive, and have no proof she is dead. Unless such proof can be provided that she is dead, we presume she is alive. 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. 86 years old is quite old, but hardly extraordinary. I have two relatives who will be 86 on their next birthdays. You cite WP:CATV that we must have verifiable proof the person is alive. We do have verifiable proof that she has lived...we have no proof to indicate she is dead. We discussed this back in 2017 without agreement. I would also encourage you to reconsider your actions, per WP:BRD. You stand in violation of that. You made a bold change, and you were reverted. You've now reverted again to your preferred version, in violation of WP:BRD. This should not have happened. Please revert it back to the status quo while we discuss. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:51, 4 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)
    • Obviously we're at loggerheads. For me, it gets this simple: Fact: Lina Medina was born. Therefore fact, she has been alive. Fact: We have no verifiable evidence she is dead. Thus, indicating she is dead is pure speculation unsupported by reliable sources. And yes, I read your reply. Removing the living people category is implying she's dead. Adding possibly living people is just speculation. We're both coming at this with strong policy in hand. You're taking it from the stance she's dead or might be so (without evidence) and I'm taking it from the stance that she's alive (and her at least having been alive is indisputable). I asked you to revert yourself in compliance with WP:BRD. Please do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • While we still in disagreement, I have found a tentative confirmation in Spanish-speaking media that in 2019 she was alive: there was a flurry of reports due to the 80-year anniversary of this event, and the tone of these reports presumes she is alive. Therefore I am restoring the category. Otherwise I would have reached WP:3RD. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Pleasure working with you. (and just to be clear as text doesn't convey meaning sometimes; I mean that sincerely) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

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)

 Done, although it did contain a couple paragraphs about Medina. However, the text nearby the cite was still unrelated to what was in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2020

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity or race

Is she native American or metizo or Creole?--Kaiyr (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

She was not a woman. She was a girl.

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)

She is a woman and is currently 88 years old. She is notable for an event that occurred when she was a girl. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern about how this pregnancy is discussed

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)

Rape, not precocious puberty

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)

Yes, but the thing is, even though that's probably the case, there doesn't seem to be any actual sources reporting that she was sexually abused, so saying that she was would technically be speculation, which isn't allowed under Wikipedia's guidelines. If there's a reliable source that you can point to that says that she was sexually abused, feel free to list it here. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So, you're claiming that a four year old can consent to sex? Seriously? 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2022 (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)

To be fair, the wording of that first paragraph is extremely misleading. It really does sound like it's implying she was impregnated by her precocious puberty. That would be a case of human parthenogenesis which is... impossible. Frankly, I can't blame the other IP commenters for reading it as a way to write off her obvious sexual assault, even though I don't think that was the intent of writing it that way. I think it's more likely it was just worded poorly. Given the highly disturbing nature of this story, I can't really blame anyone for having kind of a kneejerk reaction like that. It's a really morbid topic.

Personally, I think a better wording might be something like "It remains yet unknown who committed the sexual assault leading to her pregnancy, but she was biologically able to conceive a child at the age of less than five years (based on the medical assessment of the stage of her pregnancy) due to an extreme case of precocious puberty." This is just a suggestion, though.

As to the assertion that her sexual abuse would be "speculation", I must emphatically disagree. The fact that she was impregnated is incontrovertible evidence she was abused. As the last IP commenter said, a 4 year old can't consent, so by definition, she was raped. The likelihood of this case being the only recorded occurrence of human parthenogenesis is basically zero. Not even worth considering. And since it's the only other option, the sole remaining explanation is that the pregnancy was the result of coitus. Since she was too young to consent, that coitus was rape. She was raped. It was sexual assault. 68.102.134.99 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a case of somebody wording this so as to push a particular point of view, but rather, somebody editing existing valid content and making it invalid. Whether that's vandalism or just an editor with a poor understanding of English is speculative. See revision of 19:07, 1 November 2022

With regard to the state of the article before the November 2022 edit... the implication was that the precocious puberty made this possible. There's no problem with that claim ... had it not been for the precocious puberty, she couldn't have gotten pregnant, i.e. she could only have become pregnant because of her precocious puberty. Fabrickator (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

She was not a woman. She was a girl.

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)

She is a woman and is currently 88 years old. She is notable for an event that occurred when she was a girl. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe she died

I read that she died seven years ago. Illang (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source saying so to add that to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, can't be confired, because this source says otherwise, that she's fine and well at 88 years of age, but can't be 100% realiable ElDiaMartes (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

Just to add to this catalog of life and death claims, Lina's article in the Spanish version of Wikipedia doesn't seem to mention it - here.

My Spanish is not good. Someone with greater skills in that language might find something there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Passed away in 2015

She passed away in November 2015 see here LegoFCB (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• That source is a blog. See WP:BLOGS. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Her death is cited on Legit.ng, which appears to be a reliable source. https://www.legit.ng/1228037-lina-medina-story-youngest-mother-world.html Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern about how this pregnancy is discussed

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)

Rape, not precocious puberty

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)

Yes, but the thing is, even though that's probably the case, there doesn't seem to be any actual sources reporting that she was sexually abused, so saying that she was would technically be speculation, which isn't allowed under Wikipedia's guidelines. If there's a reliable source that you can point to that says that she was sexually abused, feel free to list it here. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

So, you're claiming that a four year old can consent to sex? Seriously? 76.202.192.102 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2022 (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)

To be fair, the wording of that first paragraph is extremely misleading. It really does sound like it's implying she was impregnated by her precocious puberty. That would be a case of human parthenogenesis which is... impossible. Frankly, I can't blame the other IP commenters for reading it as a way to write off her obvious sexual assault, even though I don't think that was the intent of writing it that way. I think it's more likely it was just worded poorly. Given the highly disturbing nature of this story, I can't really blame anyone for having kind of a kneejerk reaction like that. It's a really morbid topic.

Personally, I think a better wording might be something like "It remains yet unknown who committed the sexual assault leading to her pregnancy, but she was biologically able to conceive a child at the age of less than five years (based on the medical assessment of the stage of her pregnancy) due to an extreme case of precocious puberty." This is just a suggestion, though.

As to the assertion that her sexual abuse would be "speculation", I must emphatically disagree. The fact that she was impregnated is incontrovertible evidence she was abused. As the last IP commenter said, a 4 year old can't consent, so by definition, she was raped. The likelihood of this case being the only recorded occurrence of human parthenogenesis is basically zero. Not even worth considering. And since it's the only other option, the sole remaining explanation is that the pregnancy was the result of coitus. Since she was too young to consent, that coitus was rape. She was raped. It was sexual assault. 68.102.134.99 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a case of somebody wording this so as to push a particular point of view, but rather, somebody editing existing valid content and making it invalid. Whether that's vandalism or just an editor with a poor understanding of English is speculative. See revision of 19:07, 1 November 2022

With regard to the state of the article before the November 2022 edit... the implication was that the precocious puberty made this possible. There's no problem with that claim ... had it not been for the precocious puberty, she couldn't have gotten pregnant, i.e. she could only have become pregnant because of her precocious puberty. Fabrickator (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in with a semi-off-topic technical question, but Fabrickator or anyone else really, if you're reading this and you know:

I see you used the syntax of Special:Diff/1119466269 to link to that November 1 revision. I've never seen that syntax before. Is there any advantage to using your Special page syntax when linking to a particular edit, and where can I find more information about this? Thank you. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@ReadOnlyAccount: The number is an "edit sequence number" ... I haven't found any specific name for this, but it literally is referring to the sequential edit number on that wiki host, i.e. the edit sequence number is incremented for each edit that's saved. Hence it refers to a particular revision of a page, and thus provides a permanent link. The edit sequence number can be used with a wikilink using Special:PermanentLink to refer to a specific revision of a page. If you instead want the link to show the diff associated with that edit, use Special:Diff with the edit sequence number, but you can also supply two edit sequence numbers, in which case it will provide the "diff" between the two revisions ... and FWIW, this will work even if the two edits are associated with completely different pages.

Admittedly, these links can be a little disconcerting because the page name isn't part of the Wikilink syntax, but of course you can include it as the "piped" name. In any case, I suggest that wikilinks should be used in preference to urls because this avoids providing the hostname (which is a little bit more relevant given that hostnames are device-dependent, i.e. the "m" prefix for mobile devices). Fabrickator (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove "mere" from "mere fact"

Under "Identity of the father", change "the mere fact of Medina's pregnancy" to "the fact of Medina's pregnancy". The word "mere" contributes nothing and affects the tone of the article. 98.118.9.141 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

done--Martin 01:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinc021: In this context, "mere" means "in and of itself". Ordinarily, pregnancy in and of itself would not be proof of rape. The claim is that under these circumstances, the "mere" fact of pregnancy is sufficient to be proof of rape. Please revert. Fabrickator (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

alright. Sorry about that. Martin 06:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that pregnancy in and of itself is not evidence of rape, but I think most people would agree that the pregnancy of a five year old would suffice as evidence of rape. Also, what courts "ordinarily" consider to be proof of rape differs all over the world. In any case, the point that the article intends to make is that the court concluded that she had been raped, and used her pregnancy as evidence, and that can be stated without using "mere". Adding that word creates this whole other claim about what courts ordinarily do that seems to go outside the scope of this article. (I don't mean to imply that anybody involved in writing this article tried to downplay this event, just that the use of that word can mislead without contributing much to the sentence.) 98.118.9.141 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion of what constitutes rape is actually quite irrelevant. The statement is explicitly made with respect to Peruvian law, so while you might reasonably conclude that a young child cannot give consent to sex, thus this was "common law rape", the purpose of that sentence is to make clear the factual legal status of the situation. Now I kind of like the use of the word "mere" in this situation, because it makes me think a little bit.

We do hear "merely" used so as to minimize the significance of some event. Since no assertion is being made about the seriousness (or lack thereof) of her having become pregnant, this forces the reader to consider how "mere" is being used, and so to realize that it is being used to mean that sexual intercourse with a 4-year-old was presumably sufficient to constitute the crime of rape (I'm not actually familiar with what Peruvian law was at the time, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to this assertion). Dropping "mere" while claiming it's rape means you're making a different assumption about Peruvian law (whatever it was at the time), so that would require citing a source. Fabrickator (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, I can see your point and I'll accept the current state of the article, but I'm confused about what the last point you're making is. If the sentence said "the fact of Medina's pregnancy meant that she had been raped at some point before her fifth birthday", then it would convey the same point you're making: that (presumably) sex with a 4-year-old is sufficient to constitute rape under Peruvian law at the time. As I read it, adding the word "mere" just emphasizes that point. Are you saying that if the word "mere" were not included, then that would imply that other, unmentioned facts would have also been used to prove her pregnancy? That seems odd to me. The claims "if X is true, then Y is true" and "if merely X is true, then Y is true" carry the same meaning to me, and the word merely only serves to emphasize the claim that, indeed, X alone is sufficient to imply Y.98.118.9.141 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Under Peruvian law, the "mere" fact that sexual intercourse occurred with a minor is proof of (statutory) rape. But for this provision of Peruvian law, it would not have been rape. Fabrickator (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your second sentence. Do you mean that without that provision, it would not have been rape? Or are you distinguishing between statutory rape and "common law" rape? 98.118.9.141 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

For the purpose of this discussion, I have basically been accepting that "statutory rape" constitutes rape, but "statutory rape" doesn't exist in common law, it is defined by statute. It is only the fact of a Peruvian statute that decrees sex with a minor to be a crime regardless of consent, so we could not otherwise a priori know that whoever had sex with her was committing a crime. Fabrickator (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)