Talk:Miraculous births

message: 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)
thread_title: Sources

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some additions, maybe deletions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This Page needs editing 

message: 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)
thread_title: Explanation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced entries 

message: — JIP | Talk 09:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD result 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jack Thompson?! 

message: why is jesus excluded from this list? --lquilter 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting question, why is he excluded?Teardrop onthefire 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  why is jesus excluded?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why not Adam? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mithras? + Zeitgeist

message: 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)
thread_title: Some clean up done

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alexander the Great 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Human vs other animal species 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Zoroaster 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tone and content of article are inappropriate 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like a great idea; implemented although the Islam heading is currently empty. --Ari (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Group things related to Abrahamic religions under a Abrahamic religions heading ?

message: 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)
thread_title: Thanks

message: ::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)
thread_title: Help on signature problem

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good answer--no argument comes to mind at all...:)--Hammy64000 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The third opinion looks eerily familiar

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge of [[Reports of unusual religious childbirths]] into this article 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User warning templates do not go on article talk pages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: This template can be seen here, with a description of conflict of interest.  I did not create it.  Please do not delete it from your user page.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend disolving Miraculous births article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Christianity:Blessed Virgin Mary 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  As a hindu I protest 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this a comparative study or a collection of miraculous births? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bierlein cite about Quetzalcoatl 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Greek mythology issues 

message: You don't get to act like one fantastic story is more real than another. That is inherent cultural bias in the most obvious form. Besides, honest people know that Christian mythology is descended from equal parts Greek and Jewish mythology, the latter of which is descended from Mesopotamian mythology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C0:980:E520:8F2:AAA3:BC71:229E (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, hang it up. What are we, twelve? Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Either it's all Mythology or it's All Religion

message: The miraculous birth, especially the virgin birth, seems to be very similar to a purely biological and natural proces calles parthenogenesis, which is when an animal femele, even virgin, give birth to a baby without any male intervention. However, this phenomena normally doesn't occure among humans. Yassine Mehdi (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthenogenesis