Talk:Miraculous births

Sources

This article claims to provide the sources of beliefs with a confidence that I have never found in any folklorist discussing the theme. I suspect that this is one interpretation; at the very least, those who make the claims should be listed. Goldfritha 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Only the understanding of the man’s role in conception shall later on cause the domination of patriarchal views." This quote seems counter-intuitive, considering that up until more modern times it was still considered the woman's fault if she were unable to bear a child (or a male child).Fuzzypuppy28 (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The movie "Zeitgeist" lists like a dozen deities that were supposedly born of a virgin. I heard a lot of them were actually not virgin births but otherwise miracle births. I was hoping to find a list of them here, but this list is rather short. I mean there are most likely:

- Myths where the father was not human during conception, e.g. Zeus turning into golden rain to impregnate someone

Myths of conceptions that don't include a father, but it's not known if the mother was a virgin at conception/birth. - etc.

Can anyone complete the list? Among the deities mentioned in Zeitgeist, if I remember correctly, were : Horus, Krishna, Mithra, Attis, I think Buddha as well...--Mithcoriel (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

For incorporation into the lead Special:Permalink/355738385#Signals --Ari (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

End of miraculous birth discussion and beginning of Virgin birth (mythology)

The discussion of "Miraculous birth" ends here. The rest was moved from "Virgin birth (mythology).--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: the material "moved" was manually merged from that article by Ari89, and germane discussions exist in the pre-redirect version of that article's talk page.[1]

products of births or mothers who gave birth?

Is this a list a list of people who have been born via a virgin birth or who are the mothers in a virgin birth? It seems a bit mixed up, Shmi Skywalker is there as the virgin mother of Anakin but there are men there too who presumably are supposed to be born from a virgin birth. I'm confused I think this article could do with cleaning up.

Some additions, maybe deletions

1. Wasn't Prometheus a Greek Titan? Titans were not so much born as they were spewed out of the living earth. If he belongs on the list, so do all the other Titans. There IS a cloned horse named Prometea, though.... 2. If oddball births count, Athena should definitely be on the list. She had no mother, she just leapt out of Zeus' skull one day. But Zeus was certainly no virgin. Does that count? Most of the Greek gods and heroes had totally insane birth stories, in fact. Being born the normal way was much more of a miracle, like a child having two living parents in a Disney cartoon.

• • Metis was Athena's mother and was the product of a sexual relation with Zeus, but the birth process itself was unusual. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've read that Zeus had been referred to as Parthenos which means virgin. In mythology, virginity can be an inherent characteristic and doesn't necessarily imply biological virginity. In her book Christ In Egypt, D.M. Murdock writes (in a note on p. 159): "Also, we do know that virginity of goddesses and gods was a subject of great interest to the Pagans, as not only were Athena, Artemis and Apollo called parthenos -- virgin -- but so was Zeus, despite having impregnated so many." MarmaladeSteele —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

3. The Queen of the Forbidden Zone (in the Danny Elfman movie of that name) was "hatched out of a witch's egg". I've no idea what the process for fertilizing a witch's egg is, but I bet men aren't involved.

4. Miraculous births played important roles in China's History. This page has missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westolive (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

5. Suggested addition for the Chinese section: Mazu Shaman/goddess of Southern/coastal China born c. 960 CE "In one version [of the birth legend], her mother dreamt of Guanyin giving her a magical pill to induce pregnancy and woke to find the pill still in her hand; rather than being born in the conventional way, Mazu shot from her mother at birth in the form of a fragrant flash of red light." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazu#Legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntC2 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This Page needs editing

These are the reasons: 1: Half of these guys have fathers, such as Anikan Skywakler or Hercules. They Need to gat taken off. 2: I think Jesus should be included, he is the most famous. 3: Some of these guys have no Parents at all.

• This page needs more than editing. It could be dispensed with. Clicking on several of the names I find no mention of any virgin birth. Several, like Romulus and Remus, had Jupiter as their father, which does not qualify as a virgin birth. Reading the article on Buddha I found no mention of a virgin birth. It is articles like this that make people think that Wikipedia is not serious and cause serious students to turn to a well-researched encylopedia. rvogensen

Explanation

I created this page on August 9th, as "Virgin birth" (not "List...") because we had a "problem editor" at that time who kept repeatedly inserting this list into the then-article "Virgin Birth", an article about Christian doctrine. To finally try to deal with the problem, I moved that page to Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine), and pasted his list onto this redirect page. Of course I know most of them are suspect, since they weren't really supposed to be "virgin" births (This has finally been dealt with in a more NPOV manner at the main article), but I really didn't want to have anything more to do with this article after that, I was mainly just dumping garbage off VB (CD), and hoping someone else who cared might come along and fix it / change it from a list stub into a fuller article. Instead, it got petrified as an official "List" with no details added. Personally, I have no problem if it is deleted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• Who does one talk to for deletion? I for one would not want to do the honors. Be my guest. I think Wikipedia will be better for it. rvogensen| 19:11,18 December 2005

Unsourced entries

I am removing all of the unsourced entries, i.e. all of them. Each of them should be put back in the article when (and only when) a good verifiable source citations is found, per WP:V.

Of course, this does not require proof that the individual in question was born of a virgin. Verifiability does not mean the fact must be proven, it means there must be an authoritative source and that source must be verifiable—that is, it must say what we say it says.

In the case of this article, required is a reference citing a book and page number, (or other good source), and, where possible, a quotation. In many cases the book might simply be a reference book on mythology.

In cases where our article on a personage already contains such a reference, that reference should be verified and then added to this article. I did a quick check on Buddha and Prometheus, and those articles don't seem to mention a virgin birth—at least, not at a quick glance—but Deganawidah does and it has a web link to a dictionary of Canadian biography which checks out, so I've moved that one back myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Adonis
• Alexander the Great
• Alvis
• Anakin Skywalker
• Attis
• Bacchus
• Buddha
• Hercules
• Hermes
• Horus
• Indra
• Krishna
• Mithra
• Osiris
• Perseus
• Prometheus
• Quirinus
• Romulus and Remus
• Saint Anne (mother of Mary)
• Sargon I
• Zoroaster

AfD result

— JIP | Talk 09:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson?!

I've removed the text There is an urban legend stating that lawyer Jack Thompson is a virgin birth., contributed by User: Drevius; please only add it back if you can find a citation for it. --ArthurDenture 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

why is jesus excluded?

why is jesus excluded from this list? --lquilter 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

interesting question, why is he excluded?Teardrop onthefire 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is grossly POV to exclude Jesus from this list. Also, the article should be divided into mythological and/or religious sources and entirely fictional sources (I'm not aware that Anakin Skywalker has ever been claimed to have actually existed.)--Jeffro77 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Since no religious stories have ever been proven, I see no reason to make any distinction between "religious" and "mythology".Hierophantasmagoria 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Jesus should be included under Islam as well, with perhaps a comparason of the different wording and affirmation of virgin birth. Faro0485 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not Adam?

Since he was conceived from un-toiled ground. [and the Earth was regarded as a feminine element, whereas the heavens were considered to be masculine].

• Because he wasn't "born" at all. 98.199.17.94 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my question would be why not Eve? Isn't she technically "born" of Adam, and because Adam was male wouldn't that be a miraculous birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.45.62 (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Mithras? + Zeitgeist

I had always understood Mithras to have been an early Roman cult with a virgin birth around Dec. 25th that was likely to have been an influence on early Christian beliefs. Will dig up the cites. --Lquilter 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are theories that there were around a dozen deities claimed to have been born of virgins (and other similarities to Jesus) and that Jesus was copied from them, mainly put forward by the movie "Zeitgeist". I heard a lot of it was rubbish, but it amazes me this list claims only one other mythological virgin birth. What about Krishna? Some say he was born with only mental sexual union. But no mention of wether his bother was a virgin before that. --Mithcoriel (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some clean up done

I've clarified what is meant by 'virgin birth', and removed those entries where the virgin status of the mother or the sexual reproductive technique was via normal sexual penetration. Many of the gods in the previous list were miraculous births, but for some the mothers already had children or were married, so obviously not virgins. GDon (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)GDon

I'll do another clean-up. There is so much misinformation floating around on the Internet. Is it possible to make sure that people put up references before adding names to the list? That's probably the only way to keep this section clean. There are plenty of websites that repeat that Krishna, Mithras and Dionysus were born of virgins, but there are no references to primary sources for this information. Surely if Krishna (who had 5 OLDER brothers) was born of a virgin, it would be on the Wiki page for Krishna? 114.76.142.208 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)GDon

Many deities were called virgins even when they had sex and had children. The meaning of virginity in these mythological contexts apparently has nothing to do with biology as deities don't have biologies. Plus, most mythological stories have multiple versions. For instance, there is a version of Isis becoming pregnant with Horus by way of the dead Osiris's phallus, but there are other versions where no phallus was involved. Even with the version with the phallus being known, Horus was still considered a virgin birth because Isis was a perpetual virgin. The question of mythological virginity is complex because of seemingly conflicting versions. Jesus birth is considered a virgin birth even though some Gnostics believed he hadn't been born at all and, if I remember correctly, some early Christians believed he was born normally. Which version defines his birth? Do we call Jesus birth virgin simply because that is the version orthodox Christians believe in? MarmaladeSteele —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

I think you should NOT clean up to remove entries where there was actually not a virgin birth. I think when it has been claimed my supposedly authoritative sources like Christopher Hitchins that there was a virgin birth and there is evidence to the contrary, the entry should remain on the Wiki page and explain the evidence countering the claim. (talk) 14:42, 05 March 2012 (UTC)GDon

Alexander the Great

I have never heard of Alexander the Great (a real person, not a myth figure) being represented as a virgin birth. The article cites Plutarch's Life of Alexander, which clearly and numerously gives Alexander's father as Phillip. One such quote:

"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite young, fell in love there with Olympias..."

I am removing Alexander the Great from the article. If someone can find evidence of his virgin birth, it can be readded.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes that they probably mean are these from Plutarch's Life of Alexander:

"Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip's passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation."

and

"Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honor, above all other gods, to Ammon; and was told he should one day lose that eye with which he presumed to peep through the chink of the door, when he saw the god, under the form of a serpent, in the company of his wife. Eratosthenes says that Olympias, when she attended Alexander on his way to the army in his first expedition, told him the secret of his birth, and bade him behave himself with courage suitable to his divine extraction. Others again affirm that she wholly disclaimed any pretensions of the kind, and was wont to say, "When will Alexander leave off slandering me to Juno?"

Just to clarify, there was a lot of myth surrounding Alexander the Great. He was considered by many to be the son of the god Ammon who, as the quotes above show supposedly impregnated his mother while lying beside her in the form of a snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.236.122 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Human vs other animal species

Perhaps we should confine virgin birth to human (mythology), seeing how a shark gave a virgin birth. Faro0485 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoroaster

Zoroaster from virgin birth? This is highly dubious according to the zoroaster wiki article, and others who say he had a father named Porushaspo and his mother Dughdhvo. Faro0485 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC) it is a much later innovation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.22.129 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrews

I propose adding some form of this information. I have linked 'virgin birth' to information in the Patriarchy article and this information is important to that link.

Because of bees' perceived chastity, there were many ancient doctrines concerning bees and their products. The Hebrews, like the Babylonians and Greeks, thought that bees were virginal because they seemed to produce offspring with their mouths, or from wax. Honey was known by the Greeks to be an antiseptic, and also believed to confer immortality. The Babylonians and Persians used bees’ wax in burying or embalming the dead. The Babylonian word for bee, nubtu, is a female form of the word for prophet, nabiu, as bees were thought to be prophetic and divine.

For the Hebrews, the prophetess Deborah was actually the sacred bee and represented the conception of the divine Word, a primitive idea with the Semites, and “independent of Hellenistic speculation.” Since honey is a product of speaking animals, Hebrew poets compared it to the Word or to Wisdom, and bees to the Logos, the Word, or the Messenger. Honey was produced by the Essenes and was part of the diet of Jewish Ascetics, such as John the Baptist.

The Christian Church took these ideas over. They thought that the bee's sex was "not violated by males' nor harmed by the foetus. Fish and honeycomb were each symbols of God’s mystic body. (Eisler, Robert. Orpheus the fisher; comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism, J. M. Watkins, London, 1921) ropose adding some version of this information: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, does anyone object to putting Christianity last? They all shared some common beliefs, so the later ones inherited their beliefs and their understanding from ancient cultures. I think it would make more sense that way.

why isn't my last comment showing? also why does sinebot sign everything that is already signed.

A lot of this information is already in the Virgin birth of Jesus article. Should there be a separate article for the mythology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I used a controversial book and got carried away. The controversy doesn't fit here. But I'm probably talking to myself since my message won't show up on the talk page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Better sources

Does anyone have any better sources for a lot of this article? In particular, the main source as of now is "The Virgin Birth, The Westminster Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-7941." with no author or date or link. It is not the kind of source that should lead the first paragraphs if it can be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebis (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't show up on my talk page--it is only on the talk edit page. You can't tag this article without discussion. This book is from the University library. Boslooper has basically edited the history of Biblical historical criticism and he uses other authorities all through. You really should try to find fault with the actual information, rather that Boslooper, because I can cite his sources in more detail.

Also, I based my concern about his being controversial on a Google book entitled "The case against Christianity." After closer study, I decided that the case against Christianity could not be derived from Boslooper's book. "The virgin birth" is well organized and basically just a discussion of other people's work.

Tone and content of article are inappropriate

This article has been transformed from an encyclopedia article into a personal essay. Please follow the writing conventions given at WP:LEAD, WP:MoS, and elsewhere. In particular, the lead should not be presenting unique facts and espousing positions. The lead is purely a summary of the rest of the article. It is also wholly inappropriate to have a "Summary and conclusion" section. The lead is supposed to be the summary, and articles do not have "conclusions", per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sentences such as "This approach has been misleading" are violations of both of those policies. If a reliable source says that an approach is misleading, the article should say which source and mention if any other sources disagree. Adding personal analysis is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Kaldari (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in this article is personal opinion. Boslooper said the 'history of religions approach has been misleading.' I'll put him there as the source. He probably got it from one of his sources, so I can find those sources if that won't do. The tone of this article was framed by the source given in the introduction. There are probably differing opinions, but if you are requiring that I become familiar with all the sources, that is a lot to ask. This is a "comparative analogical analysis." It is a standard element in Biblical historical criticism. I can make slight changes in the way it is written--presenting some statements as arguments made by theologians, etc. The conclusion can be called something else, but some of the objections to this article before I worked on it have indicated confusion about the point that was being made. People have asked whether it was intended to be a simple list of myths, etc. --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The 'misleading' statement was already attributed to Boslooper!--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it wasn't an encyclopedia article before I started. It was a few paragraphs about individual myths with nothing tying it together. I added material about bees several weeks ago and no one objected. In fact no one has bothered with this article for quite some time.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning things up. Sorry I didn't realize that the statement had been cited to someone previously in the article. Normally, specific citations are given in the article body, and general summarizing statements are given in the lead. In this case, you just needed to switch them. I actually wouldn't object to you restoring some more of the material you removed, so long as it is clear who is making the statements, i.e. third-parties, not Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't add those things again--some of it did sound like opinion and it wasn't necessary. I think you mean the part about the history of religions approach being misleading. Boslooper said that, but it is not important to the article. Also, I wasn't aware that a conclusion was inappropriate. Even with those problems, it was better than my first draft. I wasn't clear about the sources when I started and thought I could just finish this up in a day. Your criticism was helpful and I appreciate your comments. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to review things more carefully in the future and not jump to conclusions. Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article also suffers from issues of factual accuracy and verifiability. --Ari (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Article

The lead does a poor job at defining the scope of the article. What is the justification for this page in light of Virgin birth of Jesus (as for some reason the lead makes this paramount whereas the main article doesn't continue that emphasis) or Miraculous birth?

The article also contains numerous factual problems and inconsistencies. It rightfully notes that the history of religions school is dead in scholarship, but continues with an article reflecting antiquitated parralelomania in addition to genuinely inaccurate and unverified information.

In essence, why should the content of this article after being trimmed stand separate to Miraculous birth and Virgin birth of Jesus? --Ari (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The scope of the article can be defined better, after discussion. You weren't specific on that.

2. This title was here when I got here. I didn't realize it needed to be justified. The comparative analogical analysis is entirely different than an article explaining the doctrinal basis of Jesus' virgin birth from a Christian point of view.

3. I used a source from the university library. If there is a better source it should be included. If this is antequated, what is the accepted approach at this time? What are the factual problems? What is the inaccurate and unverified information?

4. I offered to put what information I had in the existing article on the virgin birth of Jesus. You can see that on the virgin birth of Jesus discussion page. No one refused, but then again no one said anything at all. I've spent a lot of time on this--at this point I would need more specific objections in order to delete this information, if that is what you want. And I don't know if it could be deleted--I didn't put it here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to keep putting tags on the article without discussing it first? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1&2 - so what sets the article apart from Miraculous birth? The birth narratives of Jesus are generally explained in current scholarship within the miraculous birth traditions of a Jewish context. Whether they are virginal in any sense is irrelevent. E.g. R.D. Aus, Matthew 1-2 and the Virginal Conception in LIght of Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaic Traditions on the Birth of Israel's First Redeemer Moses (Studies in Judaism, Landham: University Press of America, 2004).

3. University libraries hold lots of books ;) The history of religions school which talks of parallels and often dependence outside of the context of the gospels is an outdated approach which I do not believe anyone argues in the scholarly field anymore.

4. Miraculous births would be a better place than Virgin birth of Jesus on second thought. --Ari (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

1&2. If you read the article, you would know that it does not place great emphasis on whether the births were virginal or not. In fact it does the opposite. Are you saying that current scholarship is in agreement that the Christian story derives from the Jewish context and nothing else? Nothing in the article conflicts with that.

3. Also, the article did not claim any one miraculous birth was derived from another. Read the introduction. Are you objecting to parallels or to claims of dependence? Again, there is no claim of dependence. However, I will get that source and see if it can be incorporated into this article.

4. Again, why was this article already here mentioning each of these other religions? I am still willing to discuss this with you, but you have not defended your claims of factual inaccuracy. It seems your objection is based on the inclusion of any religion but Judaism and Christianity. This is not a factual problem, but a basic theological one. Are you objecting because you want Christianity to stand alone? This would be a religious dispute and has no place in an encyclopedia article. I am deleting that tag. Please do not replace it with another one unless you can defend your charges.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"you would know that it does not place great emphasis on whether the births were virginal or not." And that is the whole point of what I said. Why is this content not in Miraculous birth? You seem to have no idea what I am talking about. That Christianity is interpreted within the Judaic context is not a theological dispute, but historical. You still have not outlined the scope of this article and why it should stand alone. This isn't an allegation for you to defend; they are issues pointed out with the article as it stands. --Ari (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There are parallels. The analysis of various scholars would differ only in the explanation given for the parallels. However, you want to deny the existence or validity of other traditions. This can hardly be a recognized scholarly position.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should be a historical exercise, not theological so I am not quite sure what you mean by the "validity of other traditions". --Ari (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You said, "The birth narratives of Jesus are generally explained in current scholarship within the miraculous birth traditions of a Jewish context. Whether they are virginal in any sense is irrelevent." You said it as an objection to the article. I said the article agreed with you, and now you say that is why the article should be moved. Not making sense.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You should go back and read my first sentence: "The lead does a poor job at defining the scope of the article. What is the justification for this page in light of Virgin birth of Jesus (as for some reason the lead makes this paramount whereas the main article doesn't continue that emphasis) or Miraculous birth?" --Ari (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation issues

There are numerous issues with citations. The article is riddled with quotes which are unattributed nor cited. Please address this issue before removing templates and accusing other editors of being bullies. --Ari (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari, you sent me a private message threatening me for taking "ownership" of this article. Since I wrote it and you are denying its right to exist, I think you are assuming ownership, when you are clearly not the owner. Get a grip on your haughty self!--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I warned you for taking ownership of this article. Read wp:own for more information, this page is not a forum. --Ari (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you have not cited specific problem. Your charges are false.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Unattributed quotations are all throughout the page. E.g.

"Be of good cheer, O maiden, and exult; for the Eternal, who made heaven and earth has given thee joy, and he will dwell in thee, and for thee shall be an immortal light. And wolves and lambs promiscuously shall eat grass in the mountains, and among the kids shall leopards graze, And wandering bears shall lodge among the calves, and the carnivorous lion shall eat straw in the manger like the ox, and little children lead them with a band. For tame will be on earth the beasts he made, And with young babes will dragons fall asleep, and no harm, for God’s hand will be on them." (932-944, p. 108.)

"In the Christian apocryphal legends, similarities are apparent between "the portrait of Jesus in the apocryphal Gospels and the Buddhist birth narratives…but the closest affinity exists between the apocryphal portrait of Mary and the Buddhist’s Gautama."" --Ari (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The Be of good cheer quote is cited in the paragraph prededing that quote. It is from pre-Christian Alexandrian Jews. I'm fixing the other one now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be cited appropriately, hence the tag. To do so you should refer to WP:CS. Similarly, stop removing tags and attacking other editors. --Ari (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making threats and being high-handed. Do not charge me with attacking you. I am defending my good will and long effort in this article. Do not tell me to calm down. And why the private messages? This last citing criticism is more of the same, but it is fixed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My public (not private) warnings were for obvious reasons. For example, I warned you about ownership and you continue violating policy with this "I am defending my good will and long effort in this article." Check wp:own. And I told you to calm down because of your numerous personal attacks against myself. So, once again, calm down. --Ari (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is in Oracles, Book III, as stated.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Outrageous!--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got your warning, dude. 'Dude' is not meant as an attack. What is the public not private bit all about? I have private messages from you on my user page. Those things you mentioned are fixed. What other complaints do you have?--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, by attacks were you referring to my request that you "get a grip on your haughty self?" --Hammy64000 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have no further issues, I will remove the tags.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "scope" of the article has been defined. Please take a look at this and list any additional criticism, in detail. Those tags should not remain on the article if you are not willing to work with me. Of course, these corrections could have been done without all this fuss. But you have admitted you don't want this article here at all. Surely you must see this is unfair and high-handed. Please continue this discussion as soon as possible.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that the problem of definition of the scope is separate from the question of why this article should stand alone. That last part has been answered already. It is a religious dispute and is inappropriate here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your tag referring everyone to the miraculous birth discussion is not helpful. For one thing, the latest comment on that page is from November of 2008. Discuss your merge tactic here please.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the miraculous birth article. It is as short and disjointed as this one used to be. Why would you suggest putting this material there, instead of mergin that one here? You don't like the "implications" of this article, as you already admitted. All of your criticisms are excuses for your bias.--Hammy64000 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to the Virgin birth (mythology) article being moved here

Deleted previous complaints--not necessary now and they detract from the article and the obvious effort by Ari to create something good here.

Delete comments and responses. If you want you can put them back.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go to the history page on this date to see what was deleted. It sounds pretty mysterious here. I tried to put it back but wasn't able to.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the evolution of "Virgin birth (mythology): This is where I chose to work because there is a link from another article--Joseph Campbell condemned the Hebrews because they didn't have a virgin birth tradition. The article was not being worked on by anyone. I put the information I had there (about bees). The discussion page did not work at that time--in January. It wasn't working in March when I started to work on the article. I did have a lot of trouble--mostly with the distinction between different forms of interpretation, which were all included in my source, but I got that straightened out. It wasn't Boslooper's fault--it was a complex book with everything in a separate chapter. I noted that critiques belonging to other interpretations are discordant in a mythological context. I continually deleted everything which criticized Christianity and which then ignored similar problems in other traditions. All through this process I had no input from anyone, and no way to discuss the problems. I am not, in fact, attached to the analogical comparison, but frankly, the existing material was already going in that direction. (I didn't mean to delete this)--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, it is clear that I didn't spend the time and energy on this article merely to be an adversary. I still have issues with your moving my article to a previously messy and unfinished article--especially in the way you did it--without talking it out.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete comments--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please go the the history page on this date to view these comments. I tried to put them back but it didn't work.--Hammy64000 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I read the Biblical historical crit. section--that might be enough as far as mention of other forms of analysis. Any parallels can be noted by the reader. You moved the Jewish and Christian sections to the top and gave them a different treatment, but it all makes sense as an article, and the organization makes sense for a Christian project. The Bees section is better at the end, as well.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention--I think the sources are all there. Maybe you could remove that flag. As far as the other flags go, I see no problem with the article, other than some of the legends and theology are not described as such. It seems like all of the information on this topic comes from certain traditions, not all canonical. This does not make them less meaningful in this context. It illustrates the importance to people of miraculous birth. But maybe it is better to be clear? I don't know at this point.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked--it's not a Christian project. It's a religion project. I don't have a problem with your organization at this point, but I can't speak for everyone.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a Christian project but it has a Christian focus

One of these days, I'll get this right. The neutrality flag should probably stay. I have started thinking this must be a Christianity project because of your obvious determination to re-write it and move it. It should not be written with a Christian point of view--I see no good reason for giving Christianity the prime position here. The way I handled Christianity was as one of many stories--but I did not intend to present it as less important. I don't think I was writing from within any tradition, and that can only be a plus here. I'm surprised that no one but me has called you on this at this time.--Hammy64000 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

What? Christianity is the only one dealt with here? Are you blind to the sections on every other major religion from antiquity being in this article? I already asked you to cut the baseless conspiracy theory rubbish. Please do. --Ari (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari, stop blustering. You sound like you are trying to be intimidating. Or do you really have a concern that I'm blind? You changed the focus--you rewrote the Christianity section and added Jewish material and put them at the beginning.--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are constantly threatening me with outlandish conspiracy theories and you are accusing me of trying to be intimidating? My oh my! What has to be explained? Just like there is a section on miraculous births in Judaism, there is section on Christianity, Hinduism, folk-lore, etc. How exactly is this article now focused on Christianity? I am going to be re-writing the Egyptian section next, does that mean it is now going to have an Egyptian focus? --Ari (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to get tired of the conspiracy theory comment. Where are you getting that?--Hammy64000 (talk) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are going to rewrite the Egyptian section? Without discussion? --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There has not been a single conspiracy theory or a single instance of threats. Maybe English is not your first language? Because you are not making sense.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you not aware that anyone observing this discussion can go to the history page and see for themselves if you are making this conspiracy theory stuff up?--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see that I was hasty in deleting those comments. I will summarize the issues here. Basically, this was a highjacking and a kidnapping. Ari, you have unabashedly claimed an article intended to be about religion in general and made it a Christian focus. But even if you didn't write from a Christian point of view, you had no cause to take over the article in the way you did. There are several adjectives that come to mind--but I guess my main reaction is embarrassment for you, and amazement that anyone would act this way in the name of their own religion. Give me the article back and if you think you can, you can work with me. But you may not have it. You are not suited to such an article--you are big-picture challenged. All you have done is add new Jewish and Christian sections and put them at the beginning. I am uncomfortable about my previous strong criticism but I am more uncomfortable because I almost believed you had a good reason. I wonder how you would act if someone took your article and then called you childish and told you to calm down. I meant it when I said this trainwreck was typical of the problems within modern Christianity. You have demonstrated that it has become rigid and hollow, not to mention completely and maniacally conceited. You had even less right to behave this way than I originally thought. My writing and my general understanding is more suited to shepherd this project.

For the 6th or so times, this is not your article and to object to other editors editing one is a violation of Wikipedia policy. See here for more details wp:own. --Ari (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion--where is it? Someone is needed here now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can respond so strongly about that, why can't you answer the organizational and theological criticisms? You seem to feel it is OK to ignore specific criticism. This is not a Christianity project. It is also not your article. I can't sign because the buttons are missing on the top. Do you know anything about that? Also do you know anything about the discussion page not working since at least January? You didn't express any surprise or sympathy about that at all. Hammy 64000

I cannot answer you because I have no idea how your fanciful rants apply to me. And no, I have no idea why you cannot sign o why the talkpage apparantly wasn't working. TO sign your signature just type "~" 4 times. --Ari (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ya know, at this moment I'm trying to remember if you have ever addressed me in a way that is not insulting.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a helper named Ari, because someone with that name moved this article and changed the focus.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to continue this way. If you respond to my objections in a thoughtful way without denying your part in anything, you will see that this will work better.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You may not know this, but quotes and ideas attributed to a book that are not the main thesis require page numbers. This is basic referencing, and not a conspiracy theory. Once again, calm down and think for a minute before ranting. --Ari (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory comment is beyond old. Why do you keep saying it? Do you think it makes me look bad, because I'm not the one who is having a meltdown here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What is going on? I won't go away, so don't even think about it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, what are you talking about? Did anyone say you were going away? Can you please act civil without appealing to some grand conspiracy theory against yourself. Coming to this discusison page to see personal attack after personal attack against me yet no suggestions on improving the article is quite boring by now. --Ari (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously a rougue editor. I have tried to warn you about the bad reputation things like this give to Christianity, but you don't seem to care. I have already addressed your conspiracy theory comments. And you just repeat it like you think someone will believe it. I told you that people can look at the history page and see that you are making up your claims of threats and conspiracy theories. You are just validating my concern about how degenerate Christianity has become. Truth and goodness is real. No matter how dark you are, it is real. Who do you think your audience is here? How old are you? I just can't fathom how this would make sense to anyone who can spell.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

But maybe the Christianity aspect is not as important to you as this battle is?--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest blocking this editor--he is not for real. He is playing games. But do what you want--makes no difference to me. It's your encyclopedia. My take on this is either no one is listening or no one cares. Have a great day!--Hammy64000 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags

Hammy64000, pay attention closely please because I hope this is the last time I have to explain how silly your pointless attacks against me are.

• I added to uncited content and to content allegedly cited without page numbers. Instead of responding by adding sources or page numbers, you remove the fact and page number requests and say that I put them there because you told me "on the article history page that I (Hammy) returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion." Did it not occur to you that I put the fact tag on the uncited material and the page number requests on the citations without page numbers because all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable? And that my actions have nothing to do with you and your library activities.

Page numbers have been provided and more are coming. Don't delete them.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is time you stopped accusing me of so much unsubstantiated nonsense. I am editing this article as an editor with much experience; I do not have to seek your permission to add fact tags to uncited content simply because you wrote it. I do not need to seek your permission to edit this page. I do not need to seek permission to rewrite unencyclopedic and unreferenced content. And I know I most definantly need read your childish attacks and rants against me on a talk page for this article. We are meant to be discussing improvmenets and what not - not how much you hate me. --Ari (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You disappeared yesterday when I said you were a rogue editor. Why? Did you think someone might check your IP address? I don't know who you are and I don't care. I think any disucussion with you is a waste of time. You are an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia. You are completely off the wall and anyone can see it. Do what you want. Who cares what you have to say? Yor warned me again about my being blocked--on my user talk page. You must know it is unethical for someone who is a participant in a discussion to block another participant. That is why you say it in private. --Hammy64000 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Shame on me for not sitting by the computer 24/7 to receive your unfounded personal attacks that have no place on this talk page. I have been a member of Wikipedia for 5 years making thousands of contributions and writing numerous articles. You calling me a "rogue editor" because I maintain Wikipedia policy regarding verifiable content has an impact factor of 0. Using the talk page as a forum, personally attacking other editors and removing maintenance templates are all blockable offences. So can you please, cut the games and get back to the article already. It will make everything go far smoother than whatever you think this game is achieving. --Ari (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yawn--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000, be aware that any editor can warn and report you for breaking policy on your talk page as a means to bring to light what you're doing is against policy. The talk page is not private, anyone can see it and it is standard practice across Wikipedia. SpigotMap 15:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SpigotMap, I told Ari he couldn't block another participant in his own discussion and then you showed up. I went to your user page. This is a brand new account. Do you think I am stupid, or do you think any observers are stupid?--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying my account is brand new? SpigotMap 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you should read up on policies and procedures, especially on civility. Ari said you may be blocked and you may, they didn't say they were going to block you themselves. SpigotMap 15:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that you are not making sense because the previous discussion illustrates that Ari should be warned--not me. This is the kind of thing that happens quite often on Wikipedia. Probably a lot of people are discouraged by it.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just warned you for potentially violating WP:3RR and civility, policies on Wikipedia that you can be blocked for violating. This is NOT a battle and wikipedia is not a battle ground. Ari's religious views are not up for question here, anyone is free to contribute to this article. SpigotMap 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume you have not read the discussion. Ari moved this article without consensus. He changed it so that it belongs in a Christianity project. This article is part of a religions project. His changes are inappropriate and the moving of the article constitutes disregard for any kind of behavioral standards.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what happened with a move, I see where he moved it to be plural and where he merged the Virgin Birth of Jesus in to this article. Clarify yourself please. About cite tags and maintenance templates. Anyone can add maintenance templates and cite tags to dispute a claim, the proper course of action is to replace them with reliable sources. Your personal attacks are uncalled for and perhaps you have a conflict of interest editing this article. SpigotMap 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting that an administrator check to see of SpigotMap and Ari have the same IP address. I've observed on other articles that some editors will use official sounding user names and language to define the discussion in his own favor. It seems the hope is that no one will read the discussion and decide for themselves.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, sources and page numbers have been provided.--Hammy64000 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I'm up for it. And we should do a fanatic check on you. You don't own this article, this talk page or any other page on Wikipedia. This isn't a one on one conversation, you can do that elsewhere but not on Wikipedia. Anyone is welcome to chime in on any conversation at any time. SpigotMap 16:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

SpigotMap, did you forget to change accounts before you started talking to me in Ari's voice?--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you were trying to sound like an unbiased referee, that claim would be pretty difficult to defend at this point.--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello, Miraculous births. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is the point: Ari moved the Virgin Birth (mythology) article without consensus. He rewrote the Christianity and Judaism sections and put them at the top, making it a Christian-centered article. It is not in a Christianity project. It is in a religions project. He threatened to rewrite the Egypt section by asking for page numbers for sources. They were provided, by the way. He is unfailingly rude. He has never answered any of these charges although they have been repeated many times. He tends to be insulting and lead the discussion off in a personal direction.--Hammy64000 (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

:Looking at the revision history, I've decided that Ari89's edits to this article on April 13th were highly productive.[2] By contrast, the changes on April 13-15 after Hammy64000 joined the discussion have been small, and where the cited sources are concerned, I'm not at all sure they're an improvement.[3] I think it is clear that Hammy64000 made some useful edits, but then there were some that so far as I could tell involved the loss of large chunks of content, and ensuing disputes brought progress to a standstill.

I don't know why, but I can't get the move log to tell me anything useful nowadays, so I don't know the details about that dispute - but I think the original name is what it is now, Miraculous births, and as the move is clearly contested it should be discussed here and/or at WP:requested moves until consensus is reached.

I think that all participants (even User:SpigotMap) should make special effort to be civil and put more effort into making it clear what is wrong with specific actions rather than specific users.

I didn't research exactly what happened with the "page needed" template. An editor can add it if he wants, but there's no reason to be deleting or changing sources just because a page isn't provided - not unless someone has made a serious effort to find the item referenced and honestly doesn't believe it's in the book at all. And remember - two sources are twice as good as one. In particular, I don't see why the Rachel Storm citations were deleted.

Incidentally, Ari89's signature caused a moment's confusion at WP:ANI - maybe I'm uncreative (or spent a long time hunting for an unused TLA...), but personally I think that the name signed should be the name of the user, just to keep things simple.

:In conclusion, I wish that Hammy6400 would refocus his efforts toward other sections of this article, such as the fairly awful section on fairy tales inherited from the first very crude draft in 2007, and consider discussing any large deletions of sections here on this talk page one at a time. Wnt (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, what edits on April 13th? Do you have access to the original article? Is there any sign that the article Virgin birth (mythology) ever existed? You haven't addressed the change to a heavy Chrisian focus from a neutral article on a certain religious theme, or the move without consensus--which are the main concerns. You have said there were no changes since I arrived. I arrived with the article. I wrote it. The Jewish and Christian parts are Ari's, as well as their prominent position, and that is all. I'm pretty sure I stated that in the beginning. But in any case this article is not worth this. You have not been helpful on this article, but you have set me free from Wikipedia. Thanks--I owe you for that. I still have other questions, but I won't be here to read your answers, so don't bother. Did you read the entire discussion? etc. etc. etc. Congratulations, Ari. You got even after all. Bye.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Before I cancel my account, I forgot to tell you--the sources were changed by me because Ari was threatening to rewrite the Egyptian section and had put citation notices and page number requests on every place where you now see citations in the Egyptian article. Rachel storm was deleted because the library is 1 hour round trip and I already returned her book. He said I had to provide page numbers so I changed the source. Why did he say this? Because I mentioned on the article history page that I had returned my books. I guess you didn't read the history either. Don't feel too bad, Ari probably covered his tracks from the time he started. That's why he felt free to do this outrageous thing. You saw what he wanted you to see.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't cancel your account just yet! Alright, it's obvious that I was wrong about this one. But you didn't help things by saying over and over that Ari "moved" the article - on Wikipedia, that's different than merging the article, which is what he did. And it's clear now looking at the last version of that article - which still does exist in the history - [4] and seeing your contributions in that article's history, that this is where you did do just about all the work that I thought he'd done. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll add that the "manual merge" - which I should have caught in the article history - wasn't done up to the current standard for WP:copying within Wikipedia, which recommends that the source article be credited in the edit summary, and notes be added to the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Additionally, you could have reverted the proposed merge and requested discussion of it on the talk page (see Help:Merging). Wnt (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Group things related to Abrahamic religions under a Abrahamic religions heading ?

This talk page is hilarious. Setting that aside, wouldn't it be better to group things related to Abrahamic religions under a Abrahamic religions heading given their commonalities on this subject (plus include Islam of course e.g. Maryam (sura)) ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea; implemented although the Islam heading is currently empty. --Ari (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You probably deserve a barnstar for patience for dealing with this talk page and if I had the patience to look for such a barnstar I would present it to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Miraculous births in the Judeo-Christian tradition

The tone and content of the Christian and Abrahamic stories is good for a Christian focus. You could put this article title under the Christianity project. That way, you could include a lot more stories in this tradition. Also, there would be less chance of objections concerning POV, etc. As it is, there is no logic to having the newest traditions listed first and the oldest ones at the end. Because of this particular content, questions arise about your choice of emphasis. The Christian and Jewish stories are quite powerful. Add the other Biblical stories and the article would have plenty of content. --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Also, if I were writing that original article at this time, I would prefer to link it to an article like this, rather than to the Virgin Birth of Jesus article, as that does not apply to mythology. --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Content and organization discussion

Christian and Abrahamic ? huh ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here, Hammy64000. What do you mean by a Christian focus? This is on Miraculous births in numerous religious, historical and folk narratives. A part of this is Christianity and Judaism. Regarding putting it under Christianity project, project tags really are not important, and they are not what defines the scope of the article. Following on from your objection that simply including Christianity and Judaism is pushing a "Christian focus" when it shouldn't as the article is a "Religious project" makes no sense. Did Christianity and Judaism stop being religions?

I do not understand what you are talking about in your last sentence. --Ari (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You have explained that you object to the comparative approach regarding Christianity and mythology. I am proposing a compromise. I am proposing that you keep this Judeo-Christian focus, have the article to yourself and even add to it with other miraculous birth stories from the Old Testament. Or embellish the ones you have. In this way, your article will be free of dispute. The introduction and any material explaining the similarities between mythology and the Christian tradition was left out when you merged the mythological material here. Everything you have added has to do with the Judeo-Christian tradition, but without comment on the similarities. But maybe now that you have worked on this article yourself, you see that there is enough substance without the merged material, which is part of a disputed merge. I am suggesting a truce.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I still do not follow. As I have explained numerous times, no one owns this article. Why you are setting a dichotomy of 'you have your article, and I'll have my article' undermines the entire collaborative effort of WP. It isn't about pushing obscure views in personal articles. And what Judaeo-Christian focus are you referring to? This article has no Judaeo-Christian focus - it covers miraculous births from a wide range of "historical literature, religious texts, mythology, folklore, and fairy-tales." Unless Egyptian mythology and the birth of Buddha are some how intrinsic to Christianity or Judaism I simply do not see what you are trying to say. --Ari (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ownership discussions have already taken place. I suggest that your objection to statements of ownership are part of a strife-filled argument that can be seen above. There are points that were made here that I intended to be concilliatory. I hope we can focus on those points. I can explain each one I am referring to if you are not clear.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

On my last sentence, I am suggesting that even I would consider linking an article confined to miraculous births in the Judeo-Christian tradition to an broad article on miraculous births in mythology. I'm saying the Judeo-Christian material is informative and useful on its own.--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

About the Judeo-Christian focus, I have explained that because of the prominent position of the Judeo-Christian material, where it is out of chronological order, the rationale of this organization is not clear. The prominence of this material in this context can be considered a statement of article focus. It does seem arbitrary to have it in the beginning and anyone reading the article would read for quite some time before encountering another tradition, even though the others preceded Judaism and Christianity. --Hammy64000 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. It is the wp:lead that reflects the focus of the article. If we were consistent with your argument, if we listed Graeco-Roman figures first the article would now have a Graeco-Roman focus? Or to apply it to something else, say, Barack Obama we would have to argue that the article is about Obama's "early life and career" and disregard the lead and other 90% of the article. --Ari (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But it does make sense. Please address my suggestions in good faith. I don't want to be drawn in to another conflict.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, and doing such doesn't change the fact that I do not get your logic. As far as I can tell, it is not sound logic that the article is given a Christian focus because it begins with the Abrahamic religions. The lead and content defines the focus, and none of that seem to be screaming "Christian focus!". My analogy again, if Egyptian religion was the first dealt with then to be consistent you would argue that the article had an Egyptian religion focus simply because it was first on a long list. That makes no sense to me. --Ari (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All of my discussion that was posted today was intended in the spirit of concilliation and compromise. My assumption is, that my material was moved here and disputed. For that reason, I feel free to take the position represented in these posts. Also, for that reason, I assume you might be willing to work with me. I am trying to start fresh and suggest ways we might come to an amicable agreement.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Wnt, I see you were trying to support sources with your contributions to the article. I didn't understand at first. I am working on an answer to your question about Virgil's "prophecy."--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Bradv (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (hammy64000)

....

The issues are: 1. disputed merge--disputed by me and merged by Ari, 2. no resolution in the discussion and the merge was not done to correct standards. (see Wnt's comment above.) 3. Also unable to really discuss content and organization in current version. 4. Unfounded threats of blocking, seemingly used as a tactic by Ari. My contribution begins in January. His objections to the article and the merge took place April 13. Thanks. Original article: [5]--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to help with content disputes, not discussions on editors. If there is a content dispute here, please describe your point of view and I'll try to help. Thanks. Brad 16:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Brad, I am completely confused about which issues belong on which forum. And they seem to all be connected. I may have requested the wrong sort of opinion. Please don't worry about it. Sorry. --Hammy64000 (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Wnt

I haven't been an editor of this article, but I noticed when Hammy64000 had stumbled into the AN/I briar patch. I think he is probably right to dispute Ari89's merge of Virgin birth (mythology) into this article. First, this article has the potential to grow to large size, at which point splitting out virgin births would be an obvious subdivision. Second, there are at least a few items that might fit into the original article but not this one - e.g. Anakin Skywalker might qualify as a mythological virgin birth, but not as a miraculous one. (There are likely better examples in real mythology that I just don't know)

It's not entirely clear to me that anyone actually deleted content as "unsourced" simply because it was lacking a page number, but if this was done it was wrong. Even content without a source at all should not be deleted if it is readily verifiable, and there is no observable reason not to WP:AGF when Hammy64000 says the information is in there somewhere. Wnt (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Note, the content of Virgin birth (Mythology) was not about virgin births but miraculous births. --Ari (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, no content was deleted because it was lacking a page number. The closest parallel to that I can think of that happened here was when I added tags to references without page numbers as has been clearly explained above. There is not anything wrong with that conduct. --Ari (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There would be plenty of details to discuss, even if this article were divided up. For example, it might make sense to make the original article about the analogical comparison, and then the stories could illustrate the method. It would put some distance between the method and the meanings that (some might think) are being proposed. I'm not saying this is how it has to be--I'm just putting it out there. I think the title Virgin Birth (mythology) implies a comparison between the story of Jesus' birth and miraculous births in other myths, because the majority of mythological stories were not virgin births. The title could be changed and maybe people could write additional articles on the other methods of Biblical historical criticism. They could also say whether the method has changed with time or whatever. --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That makes my point clear. In Hammy64000's words, "because the majority of mythological stories were not virgin births." (emphasis mine). It was a miraculous birth page unnecessarily acting as a content fork to Virgin birth of Jesus --Ari (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I also support Wnt and Hammy here. Virgin birth (mythology) is more specific than the current article in the two ways Wnt identifies. I also believe he is correct that verifiable material should be verified rather than removed. Although there is considerable overlap between several articles here, there is also a lot of territory to cover. I can't really add more to Wnt's excellent points. Hammy has done considerable work that would simply end up having to be done all over again, if this article expanded to the same level of detail Hammy provided at the other article. Alastair Haines (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Bradv

It doesn't appear the the Third Opinion process is the right process for this. If the merge is unpopular it can be undone. If there are problems with particular editors they should be taken to WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Brad 14:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you guys do take a look at what Virgin birth {Mythology} was. IT had a lead sentence stating "Virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God and born of the Virgin Mary without the agency of a human father." The scope of this first sentence then had nothing to do with the rest of the article that was essentially just an annotated list of miraculous (and not virgin births) that is all found here. As the content (miraculous births) had nothing to do with the lead (virgin birth of Jesus, which has multiple articles), I still see no reason to have not moved it. There are multiple existing pages on the topic defined in the lead such as Virgin birth of Jesus, Nativity of Jesus or even Jesus in comparative mythology which I have repeatedly suggested any possible content could be developed. Simply put, a content fork of all those articles is unnecessary. --Ari (talk) 00:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Virgin birth {Mythology} article showing its state just before merging for convenience (just in case anyone missed the merge header at the top of the page). Sean.hoyland - talk 02:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks very similar to the Virgin birth of Jesus article, except that it includes some other similar stories from other religions and cultures for comparison. We're probably better off with the way things are now. Thanks for clarifying. Brad 02:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Commment: it may well be that the current merger will stick. If so, I'd encourage Hammy that all his text is still available in the edit history as linked above, and provides a basis for Hammy's active involvement, together with other supportive editors interested in related topics, at the other articles. It's frustrating and inconvenient for Hammy, but there's been nothing inappropriate done by Ari. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

One point being overlooked is that this title already existed before I started. I worked on it for a month or so while the discussion page was broken. This discussion should have taken place on that discussion page--or it should have taken place before I began to work there. The discussion page was suddenly fixed when Ari voiced his first objections and the merge took place instead of a consensus, on the same day. Good faith is in question here for that reason, as well as the fact that there were threats to rewrite sections based on sources, which were already provided. The page number requirement was not fair editing practice. There are problems with the current organization, which have already been mentioned, but change has been resisted. This has already been argued, but I am explaining why I do not think my time can be well-spent at this article, as is being suggested by the preceding opinions.

Brad and Ari, the point about the mention of Jesus' birth not making sense here was addressed by me. See --Hammy64000 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I was saying that I think this merge was a result of an editor's sensitivity to theological implications, or to comparisons with the birth of Jesus--not that the article title had no merit. I was suggesting ways to avoid religious objections to the article, even though I do not think religious objections should dictate Wikipedia content. I would appreciate a response to the solution proposed there. Thanks.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain about this broken talk page. I see that you mentioned this in your March 9 edit there,[6] but I can't think of a way that it could be broken. The discussion page was started March 20 by User:Goldfritha - before then it would have been a redlink, but you had a username and even enough edits to be WP:autoconfirmed so you should have been able to start it. (As an experiment, I just logged out and started a talk page to comment on a random article from Special:Newpages, without any trouble)

I think it's important for you to explain exactly what you tried to do and went wrong. Even if you made some mistake with the interface (can't imagine what), the failure of even a brand new user to be able to start a talk page counts as a serious bug in the Wiki as far as I see it. Wnt (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about the talk page on Virgin birth (mythology). It was already started when I arrived. I put the bees section there before adding it to the article. I signed it, but my name didn't come up on the actual page when I saved it. After that, none of my messages showed up at all. You had to go to the edit page for the talk page to see anything at all. Slakr signbot--not sure about the name--was signing everything that I had already signed. I went to his page and asked him to fix it but it was never fixed. I noticed at one point that someone had objected to a source and I had missed it. I told an administrator, Kildari, who has helped me in the past and then it was fixed. At the same time, Ari made his first objections and later in the same day he merged that article with this one.--Hammy64000 (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I had an exchange with sinebot on my user talk page on 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC) All he did was explain that I should sign my posts. I already signed them. My answer: 22:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Above I was talking about the wrong page, on the wrong date - otherwise making sense, I hope? Sigh. Anyway, I've now found the bug. One of your edits is at [7]. Lo and behold, it did not appear! But here's the explanation. The last sentence of the talk page then was "Fish and honeycomb were each symbols of God’s mystic body. ^[1]" That "1" was a reference link, which actually contained all the rest of the text of the page, because it wasn't written properly. The source was:

Fish and honeycomb were each symbols of God’s mystic body. <ref name"Eisler, Robert".Orpheus the fisher; comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism, J. M. Watkins, London, 1921</ref>

For the lack of one ">", the ref tag remained open and kept gathering up everything until the next ">" - which because it closed the </ref> tag meant that there now was no </ref> tag. So the reference just gobbled up all the rest of the text. This is an annoying bug - it's a shame that there isn't a big red warning like the one you get when you have ref tags but no <references /> on a page, when the ref tag never ends. I think I'll propose such.Wnt (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Help on signature problem

Sorry, Wnt, but I still don't understand the problem. I looked at the "bees" proposal, under the Hebrews heading, and the Robert Eisler reference is in parenthesis. But the signature problem is still there. Also, the signature that comes right before the "bees" proposal looks like it has the same problem, as well as my comment under the Better sources heading.--Hammy64000 (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The third opinion looks eerily familiar

Okay, that explains the technical problem with the discussion page. I have a few questions about the merge, which is the main point of contention here. In looking at the edit history, I see that User:Itsmejudith must have been the first contributor to Miraculous births. She had objections from Goldfritha, which led to her addition of the Religion template. Itsmejusith seems to have lost interest 'round about this time.

On the Virgin birth (mythology), although the title was still here, waiting to suck up a lot of my time and energy, there were discussions from Dec. 2006 about: changing the name of the article; exclusion of Jesus from the list; and then the first mention of the Anakin Skywalker comment from User:Jeffro77. That was also your comment, Wnt, as an unbiased third opinion. It looks like you have been familiar with this discussion for quite some time. (Since at least Feb, 2007, but perhaps from 2005--the history isn't clear on this.)

There are other contributions, illustrating that some were confused about fact vs. myth and religion. (They deleted Alexander the Great because there was no "evidence" for his virgin birth); and also a complete lack of perspective resulting in ignorance of the analogical comparison in Biblical studies. Regardless of its shortcomings, my original article was a huge improvement over this. Now, if I could get a true third opinion...--Hammy64000 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean, really? The talk page was mentioned in passing a few times in all of this conflict over real issues, and that is the newsworthy part? Really?--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was pretty heated after the Virgin birth mythology article was merged, but there comes a time when you realize the discussion is the thing. At that point, you just settle in for the long haul. Don't you worry 'bout me now--I've got all the time you need, God willing.--Hammy64000 (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly sure I've never seen this article before - I'm sort of curious about the Jeffro77 comment, but apparently great minds think alike. :) On the other hand I'll admit that it is my suspicion that there are only about 10,000 people in the world and the rest is done with mirrors. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good answer--no argument comes to mind at all...:)--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Reports of unusual religious childbirths into this article

Reports of unusual religious childbirths is a very short and undeveloped article compared to this one, and appears to cover a similar or identical topic. It seems to me that the contents of that article should be merged into this one; perhaps not all the births listed there are miraculous, but most of them are. This article also has the simpler name. Please comment on this merge below. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge. The topics mentioned in that article are much better covered here. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge. I haven't seen the other article, but I agree with the reasoning.Hammy64000 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Virgin birth (mythology) into this article

The previously completed merger of Virgin birth (mythology) into this article has been disputed. Please comment below on whether or not you support the merger or wish to see it reverted. Kaldari (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support merge - obvious support, especially as it is impossible to revert. Virgin birth (mythology) was a pet original research project acting as a content fork to this article and Virgin birth of Jesus. When it was merged in April, hundreds of edits have taken place turning a POV and unverifiable content into an excellent article. When it was merged [8] and now [9]. --Ari (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Dispute merge - For all the reasons given in the Virgin birth (mytholgy) discussion. If Ari's reason is that this was a pet project--that is just not true. I offered to put the "bees" section in The virgin birth of jesus article but was ignored. I didn't want to write this because I knew it would take a lot of time. I was only interested in it because it was a link from another article and I wanted it to be complete. The orginal research accusation has not been proved or demonstrated. I thought the content fork would be a positive thing--he is assuming it was an attack. Take the content fork out--I think I already did that. The content is verifiable. This is all hysteria and lies.Hammy64000 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of scope issues

You have not responded to any of the issues on any of the talk pages. For example, why should the article be a content fork to Miraculous births and Virgin birth of Jesus. Calling me a liar will not solve any of the issues. --Ari (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Here is a response--and not the last--to your questions: In essence, why should the content of this article after being trimmed stand separate to Miraculous birth and Virgin birth of Jesus? --Ari (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 1. The scope of the article can be defined better, after discussion. You weren't specific on that. 2. This title was here when I got here. I didn't realize it needed to be justified. The comparative analogical analysis is entirely different than an article explaining the doctrinal basis of Jesus' virgin birth from a Christian point of view. 3. I used a source from the university library. If there is a better source it should be included. If this is antequated, what is the accepted approach at this time? What are the factual problems? What is the inaccurate and unverified information? 4. I offered to put what information I had in the existing article on the virgin birth of Jesus. You can see that on the virgin birth of Jesus discussion page. No one refused, but then again no one said anything at all. I've spent a lot of time on this--at this point I would need more specific objections in order to delete this information, if that is what you want. And I don't know if it could be deleted--I didn't put it here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC) You said I didn't respond. Why?Hammy64000 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC) You haven't responded. How are you justifying a content fork to Miraculous births and the Virgin birth of Jesus. What I stated the other day: "The article has already been merged. You have restored an article with multiple problems which was dramatically improved when the content was merged into another article. The scope of the article is nothing but original research/synth. For example, it is defined as being about Jesus of Nazareth but, well, it isn't. It is about general miraculous births followed by uncited material and dubious content. 1. If the scope per the lead is "Virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God and born of the Virgin Mary without the agency of a human father." Why is it being a content fork to the Virgin birth of Jesus? 2. If the content is all about non-virgin miraculous births, why is it a content fork to Miraculous births? 3. More importantly at this stage, the content of this article was merged into Miraculous births and hundreds of edits by many users (including Hammy) have reshaped it to something that isn't unverified original research and synthesis. Instead of responding to these you attacked me for requesting citations." --Ari (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC) You did not request citations before the merge. When you did you put your requests in the middle of paragraphs that were already sourced at the end of the paragraph. Often you just inserted "Who" "Fact" "Dubious". When I did add sources you deleted them--twice. Hammy64000 (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC) It did not occur to me that the content fork would be a problem. I think I have deleted it, but if not it can certainly be deleted.Hammy64000 (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I don't believe you understand what is meant by content fork on Wikipedia. See WP:CFORK. --Ari (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I thought it meant the link at the top, "See also". Hammy64000 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC) I looked at your link. "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Remedies are summary style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable and even encouraged. The article "Virgin birth (mythology)" was already here in unfinished form, and as I have said I did not intend to offend. You are treating it as a POV fork. The definition of a POV fork is an attempt to avoid neutrality rules--or something to that effect. I didn't write this for that reason. Miraculous births could be a spin-off or a new linked article. I'm not sure what do do about material that you got from Virgin birth (mythology). It is clearly repetitive to have it in both places.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC) This is Miraculous births before Ari's contributions. [10] Virgin birth (mythology) was not similar to that article, or repetetive. Miraculous births may have been a spinoff of Virgin birth (mythology) since they attributed material to Virgin birth (mythology). Ari's merge made Miraculous births into a content fork.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Instead of just disputing each others claims, it may be more productive to try to find common ground on which the two of you can work together. I think you both have valid ideas to offer. If you forget for a moment that Miraculous births, Virgin birth (mythology), and Virgin birth of Jesus exist, what do you think would be the most logical way to organize all of this overlapping information and why? It's clearly not an easy question to resolve, so I think everyone's thoughts should be considered. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC) But those articles do exist. Virgin birth (mythology) is original research and synthesis, and the scope of the article is exactly the Virgin birth of Jesus and Miraculous births. Albeit, these two articles in poor unverifiable form, but that is it. --Ari (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Matrial in Miraculous births overlaps because it contains material merged from Virgin birth (mythology). Please explain your claim that Virgin birth (mythology) is original research. It is not unverifiable. Please state your arguments here rather than by putting "What, Who, Dubious," in the body of the article. If anything can be worked out here it will not happen by repeated claims of poor quality of my work. It is not poor quality.Hammy64000 (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC) I've tried 3 times to put this in the Virgin birth (mythology) article and it won't go through. Here is Virgin birth (mythology) on the day it was merged. There were no requests for sources, facts, etc. [11] Here is Miraculous births on the day it was merged. [12] The only similarities come from a paragraph attributed to Virgin birth (mythology). This one is an offshoot of Virgin birth (mythology.Hammy64000 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC) You put more "fact, dubious, who" tags in the Virgin birth (mythology) article. But that is material that you merged into this article and there are no such tags here. Why?Hammy64000 (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not seeing much consensus for this merger. So far the discussion is one person supports the merger and one person opposes it. Anyone else have an opinion? Kaldari (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone could discuss some other solutions too--a spin-off that may not look exactly like the Virgin birth (mythology) article. Or better organization for this article. Someone with a fresh viewpoint would be helpful. Neither article is or was perfect, although there have been some good contributions.Hammy64000 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of link number 8 above. It is supposedly the article when it was merged. But the merge itself is a change from what it used to be. It makes no sense to ask for an opinion as to whether your latest edit is better than it was after you first merged the article. Neither version represents anyone's real input. Also, I can't find in the revision history, the first paragraph I remember seeing in the Virgin birth (mythology) article. According to some versions, both articles began with a paragraph about the hero. This is not how I remember it.

The first paragraph of Virgin birth (mythology), about 'the statement that because mythological births were not virgin births they have no relation to the Christian story' (not the exact words) was already in the first paragraph of the unfinished Virgin birth (mythology). The finished wording may be awkward, but it is only because I try to keep material that others contributed, rather than delete it. However, the original paragraph avoided mentioning that there are sources which show a long-standing tradition of comparison, and the strict definition of a virgin birth has been no hindrance to this tradition. In the past, the virgin birth part hasn't shut down the whole comparison, as was attempted in the original material of Virgin birth (mythology).Hammy64000 (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at this link to the revision history. The first edit is from March, 2007, but the next edit has a date of July 2010. For the Virgin birth (mythology) article, I believe it went back to 2005 or 2006, but there is no sign of that revision history.[13]Hammy64000 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A diff can compare any two revisions. In the case you are linking to it is comparing a very old edit with a very new edit (not a subsequent edit). There are many edits in between those that are not shown by the diff you are referring to. It's not a conspiracy, just a feature of the software. You are correct that Virgin birth (mythology) is the older article, BTW. Kaldari (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The diffs I see immediately before the merge do not have the paragraph I remember either. I have never seen this kind of thing before, and I've looked at plenty of old diffs.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Recommend disolving Miraculous births article

There has been fraud here, which was calculated to give the appearance that Miraculous births had all the same information as Virgin birth (mythology) before the merge. Unless there is some Wikipedia rule that allows everyone to overlook this outrage, I suggest this article by its false history and its pretense of independence, all calculated to force an outcome favored by the perpetrators, forfeits its right to exist at the expense of Virgin birth (mythology).Hammy64000 (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Hammy, but articles cannot forfeit their right to exist. Would you care to make an objection to the article which is actually based in WP:POLICY?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this was based on a misunderstanding. Hopefully we can move past this and get back to discussing the relevant issues. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please give me an update on the relevant issues.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The article Virgin birth (mythology) was already started, I believe in 2005. The first paragraph said that miraculous births in mythology had no relationship to the birth of Jesus because the mothers were not human or were not virgin. It had a paragraph for some of the mythological births usually included in the comparative analogical analysis. Generally, the existing paragraphs pointed out that these other births were not virgin births, or that they only became virgin births after the Christian story became well-known, making the point that the Christian story was unique. But the title Virgin birth (mythology) brings up the comparative analogical analysis in any preliminary search for sources. I worked on the article for maybe 2 months with a discussion page that wasn't working. (that is another story) When it was complete, Ari merged it with Miraculous births, which emphasized fairy tales and things like birth from a fruit and birth by incantation. It was nothing like Virgin birth (mythology). I know because I looked at it the first time he mentioned merging virgin birth (mythology). His justification was that Virgin birth (mythology) was a content fork for Miraculous births or Virgin birth of Jesus. I explained my objections to this above. He merged it anyway. Now I see that the revision history of Miraculous births has been changed so it appears that article was more similar and more complete than it actually was. Since his entire argument is based on the content fork idea, and it wasn't a content fork, he had no justification for the merge. He also had no consensus. Finally, a forced merge without consensus is not the remedy for a content fork. A spin-off or summary style article is the remedy. I have already said all of this since April 13.

The comparative analogical analysis does not denegrate the Christian story. There was no attempt to do this in the article. It seems to me it does the opposite. It places Christianity in the context of ancient ideas that have served as inspiration and given hope to the human race since pre-historic times. And it illustrates the tenderness and awe with which humans have always regarded their heroes and gods, not forgetting the mere humans who find a way to make the world better. The idea of the virgin birth is one more instance where humans recognized that the presence of the divine was expressed in each human life and in the larger picture of human history. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, a discussion involves more than one person. I can't have a discussion by myself. Do you have other relevant issues in mind? It seems that the one participant I can count on is the mediator, Kaldari. But the content and organization discussion is not his responsibility. I look at the previous discussion where I'm talking my head off trying to find the relevant issues without a clue, and I realize it has to be someone else's turn. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to some of the original material and also other ideas for titles and organization. Any editors who wish to participate in either version or talk about improvements are invited to join in.[14]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, you said I created that template. I did not. It is on Wikidedia. Conflict of interest is a valid Wikipedia policy guideline. It may be that it fit too well and seemed I must have made it. Please do not remove valid templates that are an attempt to continue this discussion and move toward clarity. And please do not define my motives in an arbitrary fashion.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User warning templates do not go on article talk pages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And false warning templates shouldn't be used to further on harassing people, Hammy. Indef blocked for harassment yet you had to start up again. --Ari (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This template can be seen here, with a description of conflict of interest. I did not create it.[15] Please do not delete it from your user page.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging

Since noone drastically opposed the merging of of Reports of unusual religious childbirths into this article (see here), I'm gonna go ahead and merge that article into this one. If you disagree with that, feel free to revert my edits. I won't edit war with you. If you do, just remember to leave a note on my talkpage so we can start a discussion here. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Christianity:Blessed Virgin Mary

I think that the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be included under the Christianity section.. see the articles Joachim and Anne Meeting at the Golden Gate, Immaculate Conception, Nativity of Mary, and Nativity of the Theotokos.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As a hindu I protest

What rot! Miraculous births and virgin births are different things. The article talks about virgin births of the sons of Kunti and mischeviously attributes that to the birth of 'avataras' of Vishnu. Kunti was a special case. The earlier avataras, Matsya, Kurma, Varah, Nrisimha, Vaman, just appeared so there no question of a virgin birth. Parashurama, Rama, Krishna, and Buddha had normal human birth by sexual union of their mothers and fathers. Well, according to theists, all souls descend into the womb of their mothers. Does that mean virgin birth? And what about previous children of those women? Parashuram had elder brothers. Rama is supposed to have an elder sister, Shanta. Krishna had seven elder brothers. Were mothers of Parashurama, Rama, and Krishna still virgins? The article reeks of christian efforts to explain the supposed unscientific virgin birth of Jesus. This is a caricature of hindu beliefs. Aupmanyav (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And why is 'Mithra' mentioned in the article, when no virgin birth is attributed to him and no miraculous birth too. An unnecessary addition. Aupmanyav (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the story of Kunti, but I notice that paragraph doesn't have a source. Anyone else have an opinion?--Nameshmame (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC) It does have a source.--Nameshmame (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Who is editing the Hinduism section when I have clearly given references from Mahabharata published in sacred-texts.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.39.132.61 (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@51.39.132.61: The Mahabharata is a primary source, which means that what is says is often open to secondary interpretation. What you have written in the article is your own interpretation of it. You need to provide a reliable, scholarly source that supports that interpretation; otherwise, it is original research. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this a comparative study or a collection of miraculous births?

There may be some confusion due to the original change of title and focus. The comments about how miraculous births in various traditions differ from the virgin birth of Jesus are part of a comparative study. That is what the relevant section of Boslooper's book was intended to be. I think this is an enjoyable and worthwhile article as it is, but since it is just a list of miraculous births the comparisons to the birth of Jesus seem out of place. Related to this problem is the comment in the Hindu section about atheists and agnostics wanting to claim that virgin births are common. Boslooper was not an atheist, nor was he an agnostic as far as I can tell. In any case, the comment is irrelevant because this is not a comparative study. --Nameshmame (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The article reads as though the references were simply an afterthought to strengthen an argument. I firstly edited (minor edit) the second paragraph in the section "Gods" as the whole paragraph was framed as a quotation. Also the references to Boslooper were poorly cited so I made it a little clearer who they were from. A less minor edit was to include a sentence stating that Boslooper's views are far form mainstream (aside from the fact that they are antiquated, almost impossible to find as well as being sweeping and spurious in themselves). However after reading through the talk it is clearly better that the Boslooper comments are removed. Drawing spurious parallels from Horus to Jesus are totally out of place. As stated elsewhere, this is not a blog to argue about comparative religion. --Paul McFarland (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miraculous births. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ueberallesdownload.com/enoch7.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Bierlein cite about Quetzalcoatl

There's a comment in the article that "A third story narrates that Chimalman was hit in the womb by an arrow bolted by Mixcoatl and nine months later she gave birth to Quetzalcoatl." The actual text states: 'He shoots arrows at her which she dodges, catches, and pulls from between her legs. A chase through the forest and into a cave ensures. The female warrior Chalman is eventually taken and impregnated and she gives birth to Quetzalcoatl". This seems to indicate that the actual impregnation was via normal means and not miraculously resulting from being struck by an arrow. I'm flagging it as FailedCitation. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 12:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Greek mythology issues

The birth of gods from two divine parents doesn't really seem to be the sort of thing that this article is about.

Also, "The other deviation would be the births of Athena and Aphrodite, which came about 'without the mother factor'" - This is an uncited statement that is really questionable. Athena was born from the head of Zeus, yes, but that was after Zeus had swallowed her pregnant mother Metis in the form of a fly. http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/AthenaMyths.html#Birth

Athena's birth was supernatural but it was not totally without the involvement of a mother; it's more akin to Dionysus's birth from the thigh of Zeus after his transfer from his mother Semele's womb upon her death.

And there are two versions of Aphrodite's birth - the Iliad makes her the child of Dione: "Bright Aphrodite fell at the knees of her mother, Dione, who gathered her daughter into the arms' fold" (Book V. Lines 370-371)Vultur~enwiki (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

There are actually different versions of the story of Athena's birth, also. In The Iliad, Homer claims that Athena was born from Zeus alone and does not mention anything at all about Metis. Hesiod, however, is the one who tells the story about Zeus impregnating Metis and then swallowing her. In any case, even if Metis was involved, Athena's birth still counts as miraculous because being born from her father's forehead after it is struck open is certainly not a normal birth by any means. It is the circumstances of the birth that make it miraculous, not the parents involved. Aphrodite's birth, as described by Hesiod, is also miraculous because she is born from the foam of the sea after Ouranos's castrated testicles are thrown into it. These are not the normal circumstances for birth, which is what makes the story "miraculous." --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)