User talk:WikiManZopolis

Spikenard
You said: ''"One could make the same argument about the reference to Homer's Iliad in the article. A statement that spikenard is referenced in a bible story need not be excised as myth if it is not stated as a statement of fact of the underlying event, but as a statement of fact that the account exists. This is not substantively different from stating, as the article does, that Homer's Iliad references spikenard. Need we excise that from the article since Homer's Iliad is mythology? No, the statement regarding Homer's Iliad only states a fact that the Iliad references spikenard. What does the mention of the Iliad myth inform about the plant? Nothing directly, but it gives cultural background regarding the importance of the plant. Similarly, the biblical references that you have deleted only state that "the bible states" while leaving to the reader to their own determination of the historicity or authenticity of the underlying stories themselves. The bible, along with many other religious texts, along with explicitly fictional accounts such as the Iliad, regardless of whether they are considered historical, mythological/mythical, or part both, is a book of much cultural significance, as is the character of Jesus himself. As the reader of the article on spikenard may be interested to know that the Iliad references spikenard, so the reader may be interested to know that the bible references the use of spikenard in reference to the burial of Jesus. The statement also was verifiably a statement of fact, because the statement was not "Mary anointed Jesus" but was rather "the Gospels state that..." and leaves to the reader to make his/her own determination as to the authenticity of the story itself. The reader may easily verify the truth of the statement itself by referring to any account of the Gospels and seeing if that story is actually present. The statement further does not give any undue weight because the statement does not give a viewpoint (such as a minority viewpoint or the like). It does not speak positively or negatively about the bible or Jesus, does not proclaim their authenticity or do the opposite - it is completely neutral and leaves to the curious/educated reader to make that determination him/herself. A statement that a story in the bible references spikenard is not a viewpoint, it is an easily verifiable statement of fact."''
 * Your explanation reflects a WP:PRIMARY account which is unverifiable, WP:V. If a secondary review makes such a reference, then that would be acceptable. See WP:RS and provide a review by someone who synthesized the literature referring to why spikenard was important enough to mention. --Zefr (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)