Talk:Virgin birth (mythology)

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)[reply]
- 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).[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on December 30, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

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)[reply]

They should change the name of this artcile because it suggests they were actually virgin births.

Perhaps List of virgin births in mythology would be better?--Greasysteve13 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is jesus excluded?

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 {published in 1962} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [1] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [2] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [3] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [4] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [5] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source and verification requests were not made before you merged the article--only afterward. I propose closing the merge discussion. The other participant doesn't respond, except to delete article content. I have seen no convincing arguments that this article should be merged with Miraculous births.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unmerge

This article was boldly merged in April, but User:Hammy64000 objected. Unfortunately he wasn't familiar with how the wiki worked, and there was some confusion at first. I wouldn't rule out that a merge might be a good idea, but it should be discussed, and the articles should be looked over to see what each would cover and what each would exclude. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would suggest that a proper merge request be initiated so that the issue can be discussed at least. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this article was merged into Miraculous births [6]. The content was worked on by numerous users including User:Hammy64000 (although he seems to deny this on Wnt's talk page.) Much of the content of this article, which Hammy refers to as his wp:own article, failed verification and was original research. The merge may have been done in an odd way, but the content was shaped in Miraculous births in what is now a very satisfying article. To restore this article when hundreds of edits have reshaped its content is getting around consensus. --Ari (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it shouldn't be hard to show consensus for the merge. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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?
If the content is all about non-virgin miraculous births, why is it a content fork to Miraculous births?
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.

--Ari (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Miraculous birth article before Virgin birth was merged. [7] Ari asked for a merge discussion on April 13 and merged it on the same day without really providing a convincing reason. He was the only participant besides me. Anyone else appeared after the fact to warn me and scold me. Miraculous births did not have a theme. The idea of the miraculous child was mine. He will probably say something about ownership now, but he has just said there were so many people working on Virgin birth. My contribution to that article starts here. [8] I'm still not clear on the problem with the discussion page and would have liked comments, but I did not think I was stepping on anyone's toes. The previous discussion was quite old. Hammy64000 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The signature problem is there from July 2, 2009 with the bot signing things that were already signed. There were no comments until mine in Jan. 2010. My signature did not show up there, and later comments were not showing up at all. There is still one of mine with no signature or automatic signature from the bot.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second link is wrong. Try this one. [9]Hammy64000 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't mention wp:own with regard to that as it was already sufficiently pointed out when you kept referring to the article as "my article" and said I had no right to edit it without your permission. When you say " The idea of the miraculous child was mine", although I have no idea what you are talking about, I would remind you that original research is not allowed. --Ari (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that was not to the point. What should be said is that it would have made more sense to merge Miraculous births with this one. Birth by a fruit and by incantation are interesting sidelights but the Miraculous birth article missed the depth and history involved in the idea of miraculous births. The Virgin birth article was finished, in spite of any problems it may have had. If the discussion is read carefully, I think it is clear that I was will to discuss your objections. You did not answer any of my questions about your objections.

By the way I don't know how I messed up the links. This is one to the Miraculous birth article as it used to be. [10] Also, after the merge my suggestions were ignored, so I was basically blocked from contributing. Also, after the merge, you put bogus requests for references all through the virgin birth material and threatened to delete it. Everything was fully sourced.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy, you made something like 100 edits to the Miraculous birth article so don't pretend you were somehow blocked from editing. Furthermore, I find nothing wrong with requesting references. Wikipedia is meant to present verifiable information - it must be cited. If you are angry that I requested references in line with a fundamental policy of WP, maybe a blog on your own original ideas is better suited? --Ari (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Much of the content of this article, which Hammy refers to as his wp:own article, failed verification and was original research. The merge may have been done in an odd way, but the content was shaped in Miraculous births in what is now a very satisfying article."

You did not indicate anything that failed verification. The Miraculous birth article did not shape the present content. The Virgin birth article that you merged shaped it. After the merge you unfairly requested sources and threatened to delete sourced material. Please, someone read the links.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no verification was requested before merged the article. That was not the reason you merged it. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me "referenced" that were improperly referenced. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show me "much of the article" that failed verification."Hammy64000 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those things that I requested references for that you got angry about. You just clearly mentioned the scenario above so please do not pretend to be unaware of it. I would like you to address my points if possible. --Ari (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never listed things that failed verification. I did not do 100 edits as you claim. I count 45 or 46 and they are all either attempts to replace deleted content, a change of wording because your new organization made some of my things unclear, or additions of sources which you requested. I'm sure my suggestions can be found in the discussion history. Quite a lot of the discussion has been deleted. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the other discussion is on the other article.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I said, you were not blocked from editing but made a substantial amount of edits. --Ari (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [11] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [12] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [13] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [14] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [15] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just the sources. There were several edits to replace content, which you reverted.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never listed things that failed verification.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making bogus requests again. How can you look yourself in the eye? I just showed where you used this as a tactic before. You are behaving in a dishonest way. Please act like a responsible adult.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The outline for this article was taken from a book entitled "The virgin birth." These are stories that are used in the comparative analogical analysis. This is explained in the article. The sentences you have demanded sources for are stated in this book and in other sources. The sources are given at the ends of the paragraphs. It is common knowlege that many miraculous births in mythology became "virgin" births after Jesus' birth became a virgin birth. That is a small detail--the idea of whether they were technically virgin. The real meanings derived from such a study have nothing to do with the physical reality of sexual intercourse. You are taking the lowest and most brutish view of this. I insist that you stop deleting things from the article. You are not up to this task.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources can't be the reason for the merge. The 'citation', 'fact' and 'dubious' tags were not put in the article until after it was merged. My understanding of "dubious" inserted after sources and the requests for references in the middle of paragraphs which are already sourced at the end of the paragraph is that this is the same thing that was done before, and additional sources were provided. Ari removed all the new sources twice but they were replaced by me both times. The links are given above. These must be new requests for citations and are attached to sentences that were taken directly from the source. His disputes seem random to me. I did not put my own thoughts in this article. If others think more sources should be provided I will get the books again and provide more sources or page numbers, although my understanding is that page numbers are not required. Even when sources were provided the accusations remained. It looks like Ari disagrees with these statements and therefore he thinks I must have made it up. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph:

"It is widely believed that the avatars taken by Vishnu on earth were virgin "births".^{[citation needed]} In the Mahabharata epic, Karna was born to Queen Kunti by the god Surya, before her marriage to King Pandu.^{[citation needed]} Because she called him, the god of the Sun gave her a child, but restored her virginity, as she was as yet unmarried," was already in the article when I began to work on it. He is disputing facts and sources in something I did not write. I would have thought it was a good thing to retain sourced material that was written by others. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted sources for the Hinduism section and then put in your "fact" and "citation" requests. You deleted sources from another writer, that had been in the article for quite some time.Here is the link. [16]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the Additional forms of Biblical Historical criticism, page numbers were requested by Ari, with random "dubious", "fact" and "where" comments. This was directly from Boslooper's book. Again, it is like he is calling me a liar, with no evidence to support his charges. This section is probably not crucial to the article, although it ties in with the lead. For that reason I would consider deleting it. Constructive comments?Hammy64000 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article on the day it was merged. There were no requests for sources, facts, etc. [17]Hammy64000 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose closing the merge discussion. There seems to be only one participant on the discussion page and no consensus has been reached. I assume the other participant is able to participate, since he took the time to delete article content, but he chooses to remain silent. I have seen no evidence that Ari had a good reason to merge this article with Miraculous births.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Virgin birth (mythology) on the day it was merged.Here is the article on the day it was merged. There were no requests for sources, facts, etc. [18]

Here is Miraculous births on the day it was merged. [19] The only similarities come from a paragraph attributed to Virgin birth (mythology). That one is an offshoot of this one.Hammy64000 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

The article has been fully protected two months due to the edit war which is documented at WP:AN3#User:Hammy64000 reported by User:ari89 (Result: Protected). Ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP if consensus is reached on whether a separate article should exist at this title, instead of a redirect to Miraculous births. Until then, article changes can be requested using {{editprotect}} if they have general support. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit protection is helpful. However, sources were deleted in the Hinduism section and replace by citation requests. I did not write this section--it was here for quite some time. I looked at the sources and they seem okay to me.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide on the article scope

There are two levels of detail, Miraculous births and Virgin birth of Jesus, which are respectively more general and more specific than this article. If it is not to be merged with one of these, it should seek to carve out an intermediate class of specifically virgin miraculous births, which should be covered with no special emphasis on one particular faith.

Something that is very confusing about this is that these virgin births are not truly parthenogenic births; they come about with the intervention of a deity. Somehow, the virgin births listed here are distinguished from those attributed to, say, Zeus, who somehow seemed to take a more "physical" role in conception.

What would be best would be to have some sources cited up front, which list certain accounts as virgin births, to provide a sourced definition of what is and isn't included. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new idea to me that these births should be specifically parthenogenic. Can you explain this idea? Also, Wnt, 1. virgin births do come about with the intervention of a deity. 2. Births which come about through impregnation by Zeus involve sexual intercourse. The mother, therefore, would not be a virgin. 3. This article does not emphasise one religion. 4. This should not have to prove a distinction from Miraculous births. Any similarities are caused by this material being merged in that article. I gave links so you could see the miraculous birth article before Ari merged this one with Miraculous births. Hammy64000 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the Miraculous births article and compare it to this one. All the places on this article where Ari inserted citation requests and other aspersions on the material are sourced in the same places in his article. They are the same sources. He hasn't marked citation requests there. Also, I just noticed that he omitted the Greek and Roman section in this article and another section after that. Hammy64000 (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy for similar repetetive articles is not a merge. "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."

Wnt, 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. Ari is 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 he got from Virgin birth (mythology). It is clearly repetitive to have it in both places. Hammy64000 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the source and travails of the text, right now Miraculous births clearly looks in better shape. I could support the idea of "claiming" a group of virgin births to be covered in full detail in this article and only summarized there ... provided that some good source(s) can be used to identify only those births as virgin births. But if there's no way to decide which births are virgin except by reading the article and picking which ones you or I think sound like virgin births, then I can't support dismembering that article on that basis. And if this article can't define its scope clearly and is repetitive of that one, it will have to be merged in the end. So it all comes down to sourcing what traditions count as virgin births. That will decide whether the merge is made. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been explaining the problems with dividing virgin births for days. I don't know why you are still taking this approach. A group of virgin births? This is not something that can be proved or documented. Even Jesus's birth can be shown to be a normal human birth until the 2nd century. Also, even if it were available, a list of virgin births is not a quality article.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to help me. I'm sorry I started with this. I hate everything about it. I feel sick. I feel the presence of a dark soul here who gloats and turns everything around and puts everything on it head. Mostly I feel a threat to my sanity and to my very soul. I will not return. Do what you want.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there is some aspect to this discussion that I don't understand. In any case, some sources speaking of virgin births in multiple religions: [20][21] But I'd prefer to have at least a less partisanly atheist source to cite, so as not to be dominated by a narrow perspective. Wnt (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't miss anything. Hammy64000 has many problems with Wikipedia, to the extent of him suggesting Wikipedians were stalking him and trying to steal his house or something or other. He documented the conspiracy against him on his talk page. The polemics you provided aren't reliable sources and they fly in the face of scholarship. --Ari (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "reliable sources" don't need to be scholarly in nature; we have an absurd number of articles about Pokemon characters, for example. The 1922 essay by Jocelyn Rhys seems to be fairly widely disseminated and is certainly notable. But it would be more practical to begin with a broader range of essays and underlying viewpoints, so that the article is more clearly about virgin births rather than what atheists editorialize as virgin births. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]