Talk:List of youngest birth mothers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Youngest grandmother?

2 more 8 year-old mothers.

Yo, in the Guinness book of world records (where Lina Medina is listed as the youngest mother at 5), lists the youngests grandmother, 17, of Africa, which, gave birth at 8, as did her daufghter, where * + some months + 8 + some months makes 17. I'm currently in school, so, I don't have the sources with me, but I'd like to add them sometime. Just checking for any objection. Neal 15:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to adding this information to the article if it is based on a reliable source. I also recall reading about the case of a six-year-old Russian girl who gave birth in the Snopes.com article, "Youngest Mother," but I have not been able to find independent confirmation of this fact. -Severa (!!!) 01:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] linkimage

I think the linkimage should be replaced by normal inclusion of the picture or a removal of the picture. I don't think the image could be offensive to that many people, I have difficulty even determinig if any "private parts" are shown. --Morten LJ 17:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The image adds historical context to the article. It is also informative as many readers would likely have difficulty imagining what a girl that young looks like pregnant. However, as picture of a nude, pregnant 10-year-old, it probably isn't in the same category as other depictions of child nudity. I think the linkimage template should be used here in consideration of readers who might be accessing this article from settings in which viewing material such as the image might be a cause for concern — whether due to local laws, or coming to Wikipedia from a work, school, library, or other public internet access location. They might not expect to find this kind of image at this particular article. The image is still there for anyone who wants to view it, but, the image caption allows readers to be prepared to see it. -Severa (!!!) 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't read your opinion on wheter this image is offensive, you are only stating why you think linkimage should be used in general. It seems to me that the image is only offensive because of the caption. Please specify what makes this picture offensive. --Morten LJ 17:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I clarified what I would find problematic about including the picture inline in my post above. Perhaps it would be helpful if more editors weighed in, so that we could reach a consensus about what to do, but, I get the impression that this is sort of an out-of-the-way article, which doesn't get a lot of traffic. Any ideas about where we should go in search of a third opinion? Maybe the Village Pump? -Severa (!!!) 01:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is a difficult subject ever time, I would be easier with some clear policy but I guess the world is not black & white. I have posted a link to our discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, I think that will generate some traffic for this page. --Morten LJ 06:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only argument for using the linkimage is one which advocates censorship, albeit to a limited degree. Though it is understandable in this instance (as one might not expect to find such a picture on this page), I don't feel it is sufficent basis for non-inclusion of the image. Additionally, the photograph in question is not explicit or sexual. I have to agree with Morten LJ, the picture should be added as normal. Personally, I didn't even realize that there was an image until I saw this discussion and searched for it on the article page. --Xiaphias 06:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Censorship is defined as the "removal and withholding of information from the public." I do not see how using the linkimage template would fit this definition, as the image would still be available on Wikipedia, and would remain easily accessible from an article. Nonetheless, I removed the template from this article, because the consensus seems to be against its use, and, although the image depicts a 19th century child prostitute, as pointed out above, the girl is half in shadow, so no distinct anatomical features can be discerned. Also the photograph on Lina Medina is not featured in a linkimage template. -Severa (!!!) 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal's birth mothers

there aren't any records on wikipedia about portugal's birth mothers... if you check the charts, at least 8 girls with ages around 9 and 14, are giving birth every month in portugal.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.50.204 (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete

This list is really incomplete. I remember an article in a german newspaper at the and of the 1980s. There were a girl about 6 or 7 years, I think she was from Turkey. Marcus Cyron 07:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah , I Know, it's kind of funny how most of these "reports" are recent! (with most occuring in the 2000's)

[edit] Remove 12 years old

12 years old is probably too common and should be removed. I found some statistics that indicate in the United States each year about 200-300 10-12 year olds have children (http://0-www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_07.pdf). That's much less than 13-14 year olds, which are in the thousands per year, but still statistically too high to be worth consideration. The question is -- how many of those average 200-300 per year were 12, and how many were 10 or 11? I imagine more were 12 than 10 or 11, but I'm still looking for the answer. At least if this isn't the case, then it means that anything from 10 and over should probably be considered too common. Also, this article alone (http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=729632006) indicates there are two 12 year olds in just a small part of England who recently gave birth. -- Netdragon 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Even in a tiny country in middle Europe, we have some some mothers a year who are only 12. The list would be way too long. If no further objections are raised, I'll remove the section. In fact, perhaps we should even consider removing 11 year olds, but that will warrant further discussion, and a good source on how common it is. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I support this decision, but the explanation for the "youngest" cutoff should be included in the article. Something along the lines of "For the purposes of this article, only mirth mothers under the age of xx are considered, as over that age is increasingly common throughout the world. (adding pertinent references)". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't be that against removing 12, and was a tad surprised that 12 was listed, although 12-year-olds giving birth still isn't as common as adolescents giving birth. But I definitely feel that ages 10 and 11 should stay. Flyer22 22:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I think we have consensus to remove the twelve year olds. I'll do it, but feel free to revert me, and discuss it more. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 23:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this decision. However, I suggest expanding this article in a fashion similar to Pregnancy over age 50 (formerly "List of oldest birth mothers"), so that medical information and overall statistics on precocious pregnancy/birth can be incorporated. This would allow us to add statistics on the birth rates for each age group. -Severa (!!!) 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Very good suggestion, of course, Severa. Flyer22 18:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

== 6-year-old from Soviet Union The second to youngest mother ever was 6, from the Soviet Union, and gave birth in 1930 68.102.5.92 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC) 17:32 26 May 2008

[edit] sourcing?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7258072.stm — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)