Talk:Lina Medina

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)

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)

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)

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)