Talk:Lina Medina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
  • "May 14, 1939: A 5-Year-Old Becomes Youngest Mother on Record", 2007. (details)
Peru Portal
This article is supported by the Peru WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
??? This page has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. See how to rate it.
WikiProject Peru To-do:
It's not known how she became pregnant, and, as the article states, Mrs Medina herself recently refused an interview, so it's likely she just wants to put the whole thing behind her (which is understandable really, even though it's a pity not more is known about the case). -- Schnee 14:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Presumably, one of the reasons she doesn't like to talk about it is because of why she was promised a bunch of financial support from the government that she never got. So she's really bitter about it. (understandably so)--MythicFox 09:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There have been cases of a twin found growning inside another due to some medical defeact (well obv.), just wondering if it was anything like that - but usually the twin inside the twin doesn't survive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.89.168 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 4 December 2005.

If there's one lesson an article like this reinforces, it's to not discount anything as impossible. That being said, I really doubt it's a case of fetus in fetu. Those generally just live somewhere inside the twin, leeching off of it, and are completely incapable of surviving otherwise (they generally are little more than brainless masses of tissue with a body part or two). On the other hand, in Medina's case, the child was removed via caesarian section, which suggests to me that the child was living in her womb (fetus in fetu just live wherever; it happens in male children as well, after all). More importantly than that, it was a viable human child, and not a barely recognizable lump of flesh. He lived, not only outside of the womb, but to adulthood. All in all, it looks like a normal (as normal as it can be at that age, at least) pregnancy. Kairos 00:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
My mother was one such person, she had her "twin" remains removed from her womb (or somewhere around it...) at the age of about 38. It was a great topic of discussion within the family at the time! Aurora sword 09:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a potential consequence of precocious puberty. Puberty with onset in infancy is uncommon but not so rare that most pediatric endocrinologists haven't seen it. We treat it now so this sort of thing doesn't happen. There is no reason to think she did not get pregnant the usual way. Is there a country where that doesn't represent statutory rape even if it wasn't "forcible"? alteripse 01:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

There probably are a few, but frankly, I'm not terribly interested in researching that right now. For what it's worth, however, this happened in the 30s, and as a result is considerably more likely not to have been a crime (if I recall correctly, this sort of thing mostly became a concern in western countries, let alone other ones, in the late seventies). As I understand, the father was briefly jailed on suspicion of incest, not of child molestation specifically. Kairos 17:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste time on it. It was a purely rhetorical question linked to the naive sentence I removed from the article about "not knowing whether it was rape". alteripse 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question as to what happened. We all know that this was clearly nothing more than child molestation. It's a question of who. But the man who molested her is, more than likely, long dead... I think it is quite sad that she never got the justice she deserved. I should also note that in those days sexual crimes against children weren't a concern... they didn't even begin to matter until, oh, somewhere in the seventies maybe? SilentWind 23:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)SilentWind

Contents

[edit] Photos

Copies of the second photo are widely available. I found these two by Google image search. Does anyone know whether they are old enough to be usable here? Copyright status any different than the one we have? [1] or [2] alteripse 02:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If you can explain why you have a picture of a naked, pregnant 5-year-old on your computer, then I'd recommend uploading it :P Vitriol 14:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it didnt strike me as "that type" of image, but your point is well-taken. alteripse 14:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd assume it is not included because it could be considered a shocking image and Wikipedia seems to have a general policy (even if not an official policy) of not showing shocking images on pages. That being said, having a copy of that photograph is not illegal in most countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kuzain (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 February 2006.
Wikipedia is not censored. The real reason the picture is not in the the article is because nobody has gotten around to do it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
ill do it Mirddes 08:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
All done =D Mirddes 08:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Check out circumcision and Spy Magazine sometime. stubblyhead | T/c 19:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Fuwaaah........! Aurora sword 09:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

but the photo is in the chinese article. 202.156.6.54 07:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I found two photos other than the two in the snopes article. here and here. Although for the second one you have to register to see it full size. --213.162.107.219 21:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Article Challenge For Guideline Violations

Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines Referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines

I am a researcher by nature. Call me a life-scholar if you will; I love to learn all I can. I enjoy researching and forming my dissertations to deliver an unchallengeable thesis. It's such great stuff I do it in my spare time as a hobby as well. I don't want to edit this article at all. Since it was made by someone, it apparently has editors. It also is clear that the editors didn't do what they agree to do by making a topic.

I DO want to let the article editors know that I am aware there has been absolutely ZERO critical research, evaluation of evidence, or verification in validity of claims reported in the writing of this article. The editors of this article ignored every guideline of credibility for mythical claims by personal websites

Now don't get mad because I called you on it bluntly. It is an absolutely honest and accurate assessment. Anyone that makes an article should know the guidelines, and know I am correct. In case anyone does think me wrong, I will demonstrate that I am right. Besides, I was an innocent article reader that got so hosed with BS I did what someone else should have. I get to be annoyed.

I'll expose some of the many errors and contradictions stated to be fact, some of which even result in impossibilities, and then finish off with an amazing document that may even abolish a world record. Even if it’s not an official one anyway.

What mythrepresentation could there be?

It is verifiable, and reasonable to acknowledge that it is TRUE that a very young female child, one Lina Medina by name did give birth to a son via C Section delivery on May 14, 1939 in Peru.

However, no credible source has provided any valid citation that to addresses the crux of the incident. All that can now be verified is that Lina was an UNKNOWN AGE when she gave birth.

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 maid 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Sources for Medina's age

There's an article from October 2006 in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology that mentions Lina Medina. Unfortunately, the databases I have access to won't have full text until a year after the article's publication, but here are Google Scholar links showing a brief excerpt. It appears that the age of 5 years, 7 months is still being treated as fact. [3] [4] [5]

I also found a citation to a 1941 article in the New York Journal of Dentistry (11: 225) entitled "Dental Findings in Five Year Old Peruvian Mother". Again, frustratingly, I don't have full text, but the title is pretty clear. A review article that cites this paper is available for download here; see the first page and the first reference. So the age of 5 is still being used in the literature two years after the skeptical comments mentioned in the Time article, which come from doctors who had not examined Lina Medina (and would presumably not have been able to read a full account in the scientific literature yet, since the article was written only ten days after the delivery). —Celithemis 12:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the two sites offered to challenge the authenticity of the photograph, the first one is simply a mirror of Wikipedia content, so I don't see how it is relevant. The second link, to the Chilean Society for Endocrinology and Diabetes, does *not* connect the photo with diabetes, and furthermore gives it the filename Lina%20medina.gif, which if anything would confirm rather than deny its authenticity. —Celithemis 12:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Useful Information

Would the information from the bottom of this page [7] be useful? It isn't related to her pregnancy but it explains what happened years afterward -- 213.162.107.219 19:17 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no district named "Chicago chico" in Lima, that is a very old "nickname" for Surquillo, situated south of Lima.

[edit] hermaphrodite?

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the biggest mystery here is how she got pregnant. Is it possible that she was a hermaphrodite and somehow her own body caused her to become pregnant?I think there's a name for that, but it doesn't happen in mammals. I asked this question here before, but my comment was removed because someone thought it was vandalism. But I assure you, I am asking a serious question, and I'm not just trying to be a smart ass. 63.245.145.115 09:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you think that about any woman who got pregnant but refused to tell you who was the father? Sorry if we ignored your question but the relative probabilities are so disparate that we assumed it wasn't a serious question. There are no known cases of "self-impregnation" in any form of hermaphroditism in mammals (maybe not even vertebrates), whereas there is sadly no shortage of people willing to have sex with a child too young to understand. Which do you think is the most likely explanation? alteripse 11:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're unclear on how women become pregnant, see here - unless you have some source that indicates otherwise - but I see no reason to believe this was an unusual pregnancy, apart from the age of the mother. WilyD 00:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That link sort of confirmed what I suspected. :) alteripse 01:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The only animal known to be a simultaneous hermaphrodite and that can, and does, self-feritlize is the banana slug. Never been recorded in humans and in fact no humans are true hermaphrodites in the sense that they possess fully functional reporductive organs of both genders; human hermaphrodites just have secondary sexual characteristics of both genders. See Hermaphrodite for more info. As has been said many time by others, there was likely nothing unusual about her pregnancy except for occuring at such a young age. 75.70.123.215 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)