Talk:Tachash/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Rashi commentary—no longer in English translation

Since just before this past weekend 24-26 December 2010 the verifiable links in the article to the

Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi (Chabad.org) site –Exodus 25:5

Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi (Chabad.org) site –Ezekiel 16:10

have been rendered unintelligible or unavailable to non-Hebrew readers because the English translation of Rashi's commentary (previously available) has been replaced with Hebrew text only—or has been rendered blank. Where Rashi's Hebrew commentary with English translation appeared side-by-side, English on the left-hand and Hebrew on the right, in blocks of tan-colored fields under the text of the Tanach, now only blank colored fields appear, or colored fields displaying only Hebrew text. Where blank colored fields now appear, there was also text. For example, previous verification from the published source text of Rashi's commentary on Ezekiel 16:10 in Hebrew and English that Targum Jonathan translates tahash תחש as "glory" ("Jonathan renders:...") is now no longer available in English as verification of that fact. This change in the linked Chabad.org site does not render the ("Jonathan renders:...") fact unverifiable, since other sources of Rashi's commentary with parallel English translation are available, but to this editor's knowledge they are not on-line sources. This recent change is noted here as a fact only. No attribution of intent to withhold verification is made.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Add a new language

Hi, I just want to add a new language ("pt:Tahash") on the article. Thank you.

--Tiago Neves (talk) 05:34, 01 January 2011 (UTC)

Giraffe

I'm looking at the animals section. I do not see a source that proposes giraffe as the tahash. Who translates it as such? Joe407 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at the link in the footnote to "Gemara" (just after "keresh" in the same sentence) near the beginning of the article. Both "Zoo Torah" by Rabbi Natan Slifkin, and his source the Gemara of the Talmud, propose the giraffe. That link was made long before I came to the article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kolel's Parasha Study #1999, also cited in a footnote in the same sentence just before the footnote on Zoo Torah, cites Saadia Gaon's interpretation of tahash as the zemer, which says that the zemer is the giraffe although it is usually translated as "mountain sheep". (The connection of zemer to giraffe is also cited in List of animals in the bible: "camelopardalis": it says that the Camelopardalis occurs in the D.V., Deuterononmy 14:5, as a translation of zemer.) You said you were looking at the animals section, where these footnotes appear, and you said you did not see a source that proposes the giraffe as the tahash. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another source: The Unicorn Convention: (regarding tachash as giraffe) Rabbi Amitai ben-David, shochet and author of Sichas Chullin, published an exciting theory regarding the tachash. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you may find http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU11_Zivotofsky.pdf interesting reading on this topic. Joe407 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

' Did! Added the information to the footnotes. Very useful. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

general comments

I was asked to join a discussion about this article at the content noticeboard, and commented there: [1] There are three things that are needed:

1. copyediting for conciseness, to remove duplication of material covered adequately elsewhere, to remove excess links, and to normalize references. My own preference is to do some of this piecemeal, before attempting anything more extensive.
2. reorganization, to decrease the amount of in-article repetition, and to move some material elsewhere in Wikipedia, or deleted some parts that may be only very peripherally irrelevant.
3. removal of excess referencing. A list of every version of every translation in the modern period does not really add significant information. If one were writing a thesis, it would be acceptable material, but I cannot imagine a conventional publisher thinking the material necessary.

I'm likely to need some help in identifying and citing non-English material. I note that something no longer being on line, is not reason to omit it, but printed sources may need exact identification. I would really be grateful if I could do it without editing at cross purposes. There is another approach to careful improvement, which is reducing the article to normal length by drastic cutting. As I said elsewhere, I think we need more articles of this general degree of understanding and thoroughness, so I'd rather keep what is possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the reduction in text I just extensively performed, and compare this current text with the one just 3 days ago. I was already doing some of the copyediting and reduction in text you recommend before I read your proposals. You saw the same thing I did! Glad to have you looking at the article with constructive ideas. As for the list of translations: as an historian and amateur Bible scholar I personally found the list of translations useful and interesting as far as showing historical differences, and trends in translation; I even added a few near the bottom and at the top of the list. Since the original thrust of the article (when I found it in October) seemed to be about accuracy in translation (a subject that really interests me), the list displays (faster than a discussion could have done) how interpretations got away from the ancient understanding of the word and latched onto new theories and then headed back again. I even considered that for an encyclopedic overview the intro lead, the definitions, the historico-chronological list of translations, and the Summary of modern meanings at the end, as they stood, could have been enough. But from the standpoint of historical development, right now the article does show how the changes took place (and with less text). I did what I could to get rid of the "poetry", and the apparent agenda of trying to point out "stupidity" in researchers (which I found really offensive!), and the "new age" (esoteric) interpretations, and the hammering about only color as the one valid meaning of the word. On the other hand there has been from some other editors over the past several weeks an apparent opposite thrust and campaign to rid the article of showing that tahash could ever have been a color in ancient times, actually around the time of Moshe himself. I've been trying to find and include and retain all the major points of view about what this mysterious word means, and include and retain the fact that it has been so important to so many scholars through the centuries. The etymology timeline shows who and when. "Why" is more risky and gets away from neutrality. An earlier editor apparently tried to show that the reasons some of the translators had for the translation they made were way off-base, implying that they can't be trusted, that they were playing false, and that they were trying to coverup the real meaning of the text. I changed the wording to more straight-forward statements of fact without innuendoes of that kind. The most recent thing I've been doing the past 3 days is to get rid of deadwood—filler—extra text that inflated some essential points unnecessarily. Also did what I could to make the wording more NPOV. As for the repetitions, I agree with you for the most part. Unfortunately some apparent vandalism has occurred over the past several weeks on the pretext that "no sources" were cited at a particular point, and the material which had supporting citation earlier in the text was reverted without good cause. So to keep it in, I repeated citations and references at places where people like that might say "where's the source for this here?—I don't like this, I don't believe it, and since there's no reference or source for it right here that I can see, I can get rid of it!" With the reference and footnote citation right there they can't use the excuse (I thought) that the citation isn't right there for them to see, so they can't say it's Original Research—other sources reputable and published have said it. I would have preferred single, first-point, citations, but it didn't seem to be good enough to keep the reverters away. And it isn't even my own article! I only tried to augment and improve what I found, just to make it better.

For the moment I have to take a break from the article. There's a banner asking for citations and sources for the text in the Summary about Allegorical interpretation. But I think I know where the source citations are for the allegorical interpretation: The Talmud, Perek Shirah, and R. Natan Slifkin's works. If you know those, and other sources too, go ahead! After a good weekend, I plan to get back and finish that up if it still needs to be done. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Snapshots of the construction site: handy reference to major changes

I see a lot has happened. You need a shorter history of revisions on hand for comparison, highlighting the major changes, without making people wade through a lot of extra entries to find them.

• 24 Feb. 2007
• 25 Nov. 2009
• 5 Mar. 2010
• 25 Mar. 2010
• 22 June 2010
• 19 Oct. 2010
• 28 Nov. 2010
• 4 Dec. 2010
• 8 Dec. 2010
• and the current version.

(From the history of this talk page, this segment was made by Hired gun.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Paul Heart (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash article: serious concerns about notability, original research, WP:Undue

I did a fairly extensive search of religion-oriented newspapers and magazines in January 2011 (including Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, others) as well as searching the Internet for just the stand-alone term. As best I can determine, the word "tahash" is a boy's name from the Bible, from Genesis. It is basically mentioned there but with no further coverage -- I did not find any particular Biblical stories relating to this person Tahash (although it's possible that stories exist, somewhere). According to Genesis, Tahash was the nephew of Abraham. One writer in the Jerusalem Post named Shlomo Riskin thought the significance was a contrast between Abraham and his brother Nahor -- while Abraham had trouble conceiving children, his brother didn't, and had twelve -- eight by a wife, and four by a concubine named Reumah (of which Tahash was one of the children). But the focus of this article was on Abraham -- Tahash only got a brief mention, if that. Still, Tahash is a Biblical name. So, what's surprising to me, right off the bat, reading the Wikipedia treatment of Tahash, is that the Tahash-as-Biblical-name information doesn't appear in the Wikipedia article in the lede paragraphs. At the very least, there should be an indication that the name "Tahash" was a brief cameo-mention in the Bible. - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But other than that, I searched numerous publications, religious and secular, for mention of the word "tahash". There was basically nothing. What I can't fathom was that if the term has any cultural or historical importance, why isn't it at least mentioned in any of the countless magazines and newspapers devoted to religious or secular topics? Here are the sources I looked in hunting for the word "tahash": - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Religious news sources: bbc.co.uk/religion, breakpoint.org, christianbusinessdaily.com, christianitytoday.com, freshoutlookmag.com, theturning.org, commentarymagazine.com, forward.com, jhom.com, jewishworldreview.com, reformjudaismmag.org, eretz.com, khilafah.com, dailymuslims.com, islamic-voice.com, lds.org - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish religion newspapers: beismoshiach.org, chabad.org, commentarymagazine.com, eretz.com, forward.com, innernet.org.il, jpost.com, jewishfamily.com, jhom.com, jewishmag.co.il, jewishpost.com, jewishrenaissance.org.uk, thejewishweek.com, jewishworldreview.com, kabtoday.com, kashrusmagazine.com, freeman.org/MOL, momentmag.com, nkusa.org, reformjudaismmag.org, shma.com, tikkun.org, worldjewishdigest.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

US and worldwide secular sources: wsj.com, nytimes.com, boston.com, miamiherald.com, post-gazette.com, chicagotribune.com, suntimes.com, latimes.com, sfexaminer.com, oregonian.com, usatoday.com, time.com, washingtonpost.com, nysun.com, cbsnews.com, npr.org, guardian.co.uk, nj.com, nhpr.com, huffingtonpost.com, thestar.com, usnews.com, slate.com, newsweek.com) (site:baltimoresun.com, herald-mail.com, staradvertiser.com, hawaiitribune-herald.com, westhawaiitoday.com, mauinews.com, gazette.net, fredericknewspost.com, somdnews.com, wsj.com, nytimes.com, guardian.co.uk, usatoday.com, france24.com/en, chinadaily.com.cn, english.aljazeera.net, indiatoday.in, economist.com, news.bbc.co.uk, journalperu.com, brazzil.com, rnw.nl/english, canada.com, cbc.ca, japantimes.co.jp, dailytelegraph.com.au, sunherald.com.au, hongkongherald.com - Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked tertiary sources such as Bible encyclopedias and again found a pattern of very little interest. They picked up the mention in Genesis. A few sources mentioned something to the effect of animal skins. It's possible that these other "Bible encyclopedias" picked up an earlier version of Wikipedia's tahash article and there's a mirroring thing going on, so that they picked up the "animal skins" idea from Wikipedia, and are reporting it back. But basically the term tahash didn't get much more attention than that. What possible confuses matters more is it's possible that there are spelling variants for the word "tahash", such as "ta' hash" (two words) or "tachash". It isn't clear which words derive from which. Regardless, there need to be sources indicating that the two terms are interchangeable, or derived from each other, that is, tahash and tachash.- Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What I have difficulty understanding is how this appears to be a book-length tome about something that gets very little attention or coverage in so-called Bible encyclopedias or in mainstream media or in religious publications including newspapers or magazines as well as online sources. This suggests that there's original research going on as well as undue weight- .Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Tom, thank you for joining the conversation here. I had completely forgotten that Tahash was also the name of a biblical character. I would suggest a few possibilities. One is to have a short paragraph on the character in this article. Another is to has a disambiguation line at the top of the article pointing to Tahash (person). While I doubt that there is enough to give him an article, he probably deserves a mention in the "list of minor biblical characters" article. Another point might be to have Tahash point to the person and Tachash point to the animal. Joe407 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to 35 "Tahash article: serious concerns about notability...WP:Undue."

All of the copyright and publication dates of Bible encyclopedias in libraries and online predate the main versions of the article. They didn't get their information here. They found the word notable enough for inclusion in those publications.

The wikipedia article "Tahash" is not about Avraham's brother born to Nahor. It is about the obscure Hebrew word for the kind of skins used to cover the Mishkan: וערות תחשים, specifically תחש.

Tahash Tachash Thahash Tchash tahas – t-h-s – t-ch-s – t-ch-sh – are interchangable transliterations of תחש in the texts of Shemot-Exodus 25, 26, 35, 36, 39, Bamidbar-Numbers 4, and Yechezkel-Ezekiel 16, according to the

• Bible Translations listed in the article, and according to
• Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Sabbath 28a,b ("the tahash that was in Moses' day"),
• Encyclopedia Judaica: TAHASH,
• Anchor Bible Dictionary: TAHASH: Heb tahas,
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: badger,
• Brown Driver Briggs English-Hebrew Lexicon: † תחש ths, and others.

The consistent English translation by professional Semitic and Hebrew scholars of the Hebrew תחש tahas animal skin or leather, in reference works published within the last 15 years, has been the English form TAHASH.

The article cites this fact by example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Paul Heart (talk • contribs) 17:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A Google-search as of today's date listed the Wikipedia article Tahash followed by NETBible: Tahash.

Clicking on that site displays the following information:

–———————–

Tahash

In Bible versions:

Tahash: NET AVS NIV NRSV NASB TEV

–———————–

son of Reumah and Nahor, brother of Abraham

–———————–

Hebrew

Strong's #08477: vxt Tachash

Thahash = "dugong"

1) son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah and nephew of Abraham. 8477 Tachash takh'-ash the same as 8476; Tachash, a relative of Abraham: – Thahash.

see HEBREW for 08476.

–———————–

Tahash [NAVE]

TAHASH

See: Thahash

–———————–

TAHASH [ISBE]

TAHASH - ta'-hash (tachash; Tochos; the King James Version Thahash): A son of Nahor by his concubine Reumah (Gen 22:24). The word tachash means a kind of leather or skin, and perhaps the animal yielding it, probably the "dugong" (compare, Brown, Briggs, and Driver). Tachash has been identified by Winckler with Tichis (Egypt), located on the Orontes, North of Kadesh.

–———————–

copyright © 2005–2009 bible.org

–———————–

(boldface emphasis in phrase "...word tachash means a kind of leather..." is mine. —MPH)

• SearchGodsWord.org also displays the same identical תחש Hebrew spelling for Thahash and for tachash which the above sources interchangably translate/transliterate as tahash.

All of the sources cited above state clearly that they derived their information from works in the public domain.

I really do regret that this man Tomwsulcer has so clearly displayed his lack of competence in research and has so obviously demonstrated either his failure to check and verify the sources cited in the article or, if that's not the case, his refusal to acknowledge them and advert to them in his rebuttal. This shows that he is using the fallacy of the Straw man in an attempt to demonstrate lack of notability, as support for his contention that the article does not merit inclusion in the Wikipedia.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion by Joe407 (above) of a disambiguation page is a great idea! Go for it! Even though an online search produces an entry for this Wiki article on the kind of skins covering the Mishkan [ תחש ] and the above entry dealing mostly with Avraham's brother Thahash [ תחש ], it would be immediately helpful to Wiki readers by reducing or eliminating the kind of confusion that prompted the objection of Tomwsulcer above. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Tahash - leather used as cover for the Jewish Tabernacle

Tahash (person) - relative of Patriarch Abraham --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I have just now, by consensus with highly relevant opinions expressed above by Tomwsulcer and Joe407, included the name of Nahor's son תחש Thahash in the Etymology timeline of the article with an eye to its historical context and connotative pastoral meaning 500 years before the Exodus of Israel from Egypt—–three supportive links have also been included to SearchGodsWord.org #08477, Strong's Hebrew Lexicon number 8477, and Bible Verse Finder (bibref) Genesis 22:24.

• See article Tahash: —Etymology: —Semitic.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Trimming and sharpening the " [nb- ] " notes

I was just going over the " [nb-.] " footnotes, separate from the references, and I think they really need to be reworked to conform to Wikipedia standards of brevity and NPOV without changing the essential information or discussion they contain. I intend to do about one, three of them at a time every two, three days, starting with " [nb-1] ", until they're all sharpened up and ready. That should shorten the bites of the article. Probably take about a week or two at the most. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Original Research and Synthesis of material sources

Received messages on my talk page regarding having been warned about WP:OR and WP:SYN. No examples have been given: only the complaint that there is some (all of which I am trying to eliminate from an otherwise useful and informative article on translation of an obscure Hebrew word). If the objections are not simply motivated by the reaction that "I don't like this, I don't believe it, so I want to get rid of it," (notwithstanding cited sources genuinely supporting it) then some examples would be welcome. For my part I am trying to salvage genuine historical facts relating to changes in interpretation and translation of the word through history (which William Propp called "an ancient riddle"). I have also been doing what I could to provide additional requested verification from reputable published sources and third-party sources. Observation: the works of Natan Slifkin have reportedly been banned by some of the Jewish community for heresy in stating that the Sages of the Talmud could have been wrong. Some of the translations cited from Jewish sources in the article Tahash might be interpreted as a "synthesis" taking that position, and could (I suppose) be interpreted as Original Research and Synthesis. But cited in chronological order, without providing a conclusion of the possible significance, and stated only as a fact of what the sources said in the historically documented order in which they said it is not a violation of either one of Wikipedia's policies. It might look like a violation. What some might interpret as a "Synthesized" presentation of "evidence" that the Sages "were wrong" may be the motive behind these complaints. But I cannot state categorically that this is the case. Only that it may be. The article does not claim to present a definitive "solution" to the "ancient riddle". It should not. All major points of view are presented (as far as I can tell).

A summary of material from multiple sources is allowed, in the editor/contributor's own words WP:SOURCE (it doesn't have to be a quotation verbatim for legitimate inclusion). The substance of any summary or statement not reflective of material from any reputable published source is not allowed. I am currently doing what I can to eliminate those and reduce the text without loss of relevant factual information. That kind of edit hardly seems like OR or SYN. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew 'or as וער

Poliocretes says in his edit summary: hebrew spelling of "or" is עור, not וער.

The following sites (available at the Bible Verse Finder bibref site) spell Hebrew " 'or " as וער:

• Hebrew - no vowels; Masoretic spelling (Mechon Mamre)
• Hebrew - plene spelling (Mechon Mamre)
• Hebrew with Cantillation Marks (Mechon Mamre)
• Hebrew with Vowels (Mechon Mamre)
• Hebrew-English - paraellel MT and JPS 1917 (Mechon Mamre)
• Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Chabad.org)
• Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi (Chabad.org)
• Navigating the Bible II (bible.ort.org)
• Scrollscraper Tikkun

Please understand that a footnote by Poliocretes with online links to sites displaying Hebrew Torah text and Tikkun with spelling of 'or as עור would be welcome, and useful to any reader of the article, as NPOV documentation of the alternate Hebrew spelling he submitted in his edit.

If the online sites he provides, with links, are more authoritative than the eight links provided here and available at the online bibref site, then these eight links, provided above, should be put in the footnote instead, and the reversion of his spelling should be "undo" undone and the form עור that he submitted be restored to the body of the article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Heart, the Vav in each and every one of your examples is a grammatical conjunction meaning 'and'. Coupled with Biblical Hebrew written in Ktiv haser, meaning consonants are not always in use, 'וער' does not mean 'or' it means 've'or' - 'and leather/skin'. 'or' is either 'עור' or 'ער'. I won't revert your text back to mine, but the current text is simply wrong. Poliocretes (talk) 10:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As a Hebrew speaker, I'd like to reemphasize Poliocretes point. The word for skin or hide is ער or עור and in no way וער, unless in the conjugation of "And skin" or "And hide". Joe407 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Point well taken! I'll revert/revise spelling of isolated instances of Hebrew 'or עור in the article and retain the spelling of the phrase וערות תחשים according to the text in the Torah and Tikkun in the eight links above. I'll combine both your comments nearly verbatim in a footnote to the lead paragraph, together with the eight links, and add links to Strong's #5783 עור and #5785 עור (SearchGodsWord.org). We have consensus.

What we now need as verification in the new footnote for the reader is a linked source (or linked sources) of the Torah text and Tikkun displaying the singular form עור 'or.

As for Poliocretes saying that the linked texts are simply "wrong"—I'll assume you meant "wrongly used as examples" (by me), instead of assuming that you're saying that they're all incompetent or faulty copies of the Torah texts, displayed by editors of those sites who should know better. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Project Etymology

I just put an alert notice in the WikiProject Etymology "needs attention" page. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Final finishing edit

I have always carefully weighed the merits of each comment and edit. After due consideration and investigation most of the objections raised against material in this article appear reasonable—but not all of them.

I had originally assumed good faith on the part of the previous editor(s) when I first viewed the article in October last year. In the absence of documentation from other editors, i.e. citing reliable secondary and third-party published sources providing conclusive refutation of material in the article that they believed should be reverted, I had not yet found the information to be defective. But later I did.

As I began to work with it, seeking and sometimes actually finding multiple verification for material that they insisted had no supporting documentation, I began to notice a subtle agenda woven into the text (by Hermitstudy) that had no place in an encyclopedia:

• "only one valid interpretation is supported" (HAH not true);
• "the Sages of the Talmud made it up and invented the animal Tachash" (HAH you can't prove it–circumstantial synthesis ain't good enuf);
• "most of the translators before the 21st century were really stupid ignorant fools" (HAH not true);
• and "a brilliant theory of word play connecting Tehasim and Hashem" (which NO ONE anywhere else that I consulted and searched in libraries and by phone had EVER HEARD OF—HAH! and again HAH!!).

As a "good faith" interpretation of their motives, I do not doubt that the reverting editors accurately intuited these defects, but without adequate articulation of good cause.

Unfortunately, unsupported reversion of material, for no other cause than specious reasons given that didn't fit the facts, likewise appeared to come from a slanted opposing agenda that apparently bordered on vandalism—because no really good substantive cause from reliable sources, professional experts, was cited. If there was actual support for reversion from reputable sources it wasn't cited, if there was no support there was no cause.

It didn't help that the reverting editors apparently did not "seek verification" as requested by the banner above the article. A true researcher might at first glance say, "I don't think this is valid, I don't agree with these statements"—but then he seeks verification as requested, gets to work, goes on-line and "in-library" to reputable, reliable, published sources that might reasonably be expected to say something one way or the other, and patiently looks at the evidence (or lack thereof). Then he can say on the talk page of the article, "I consulted multiple Encyclopedia MATERIAL, Volume 999; and Book TREATISE RESEARCH, by Doctor EXAMINER; and published papers UNIVERSITY FACULTY JOURNALS X and Y, reviewed by 100 YEAROLD INTERNATIONAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY—I even called and wrote YUNO HOO and SUM BODY—and they confirmed that "yes indeedy doo, the statements made are true". Then he not only does not revert the material that he didn't like and didn't believe, but now he has more corroborating evidence from reputable published sources that can be added to the article in support of the statements he thought should be reverted and felt should have been deleted. If he's honest, he'll do exactly that, and the encyclopedia is improved. If not, then he has an agenda and a prejudice that does not belong in an encyclopedia editor.

Once I was clear about the exact kinds of defects in wording and synthesis that were slanting the historical facts in this article, I was determined to correct them. (I'm glad Hermitstudy took a hike—he should've listened to his "collegues" at the beginning, kept his theories to himself or written a book, and stayed out.) The objections raised by several of the editors the past four months were helpful to me in focussing on specifically defective parts of the article, even if the objections they raised were not entirely valid and were not provided with verifiable support. I would urge them to genuinely "validate" material they want to revert before they revert it if they truly want to be constructive and not look like Trolls. Had they done that they wouldn't have had any static from me. It is possible to abuse WP:BRD. "Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy."

Let me in closing re-iterate a statement at the top of the article that was placed there by another editor and remains true, which is why I didn't remove it: The banner presently at the top of the article asks for attention from an expert. If you're not a professional expert, you don't qualify. Leave it alone.

I've done what I could to cleanup the article and give it an encyclopedic form. (As far as I can tell, it now has a neutral point of view and presents all documented professional opinions.) But four more months of controversy I can live without. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Targum Jonathan

Only yesterday I stumbled across an online source offering the 1894 English translation of the Targums, and immediately added it as a cited reference to the article, with link to the translation. I was frankly astonished that the Hebrew-speaking editors interacting on this site had not contributed a link to this resource, or made a reference to it. The Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) translates עורת תחשים as "purpled skins". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction vs Summary

Currently we have a very short introduction, and an extensive summary at the end, such that someone has seen it necessary to link to the summary from the introduction. It is convention for Wikipedia articles not to have a summary at the end, but to have a comprehensive introduction per WP:LEAD. Can we remove the summary? We don't have to lose any content - we can move some to the intro sufficient to give a good overview within four paragraphs, and the rest can moved to the lead portions of relevant sections. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Back in October there was a "summary" type of introduction to the article, but it was deemed "too long" and afterward was broken up by Joe407. Later on, looking at the article as an ordinary reader, it was difficult to immediately determine exactly what the current meaning is, if that's all I wanted to know. So a summary was added at the end as an expression of 21st century interpretations after the Etymology of the centuries, but getting there was hardly obvious, even though it was listed in the table of contents. So I put a handy link to the Summary for the convenience of the reader, to jump past what might seem too much or not what the reader was looking for. Move it if you choose. Just read the article carefully for continuity before you save it. As a plus, it might just make the first few sections after the Biblical Translations unnecessary. Consider getting rid of the whole Etymology section, retaining the Biblical Translations section intact as it is, and putting the Summary immediately after it with the footnotes intact (in case people scream about "where's the documentation for this?") --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Change "Summary" to "View"

If the word "summary" bothers you guys, I changed it so it doesn't violate Wiki policy and it can be left where it is or moved, either way WP:BRD. It didn't look like a summary of the article anyway, but a summary of what it means today, 21st century, now, "as advertised". Let's see what happens, O.K? 209.56.118.3 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Clarity or Conciseness in this article

I must point out to editors working on this article that it is currently inaccessible to the casual reader. After a concerted effort to absorb the large amount of information presented, I am no closer to understanding even the basic concepts of this topic. As mentioned above, a clearly worded lede would be a start. The extensive use of external links in the main body also goes against our policy - info contained in those links should be summarized and presented in prose (the link then would be a ref, provided it is RS) I would like to help out, but ancient Semitic is not my area of expertise. I notice from the threads on this page that Mr. Heart is opposed to major changes. I implore him to think of the poor reader, who came here looking for a clear description of Tahash, and instead finds a sprawling research paper. Much trimming and clear summarizing is needed. The Interior(Talk) 02:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That was the point of "a brief summary of the current meaning of the word", as a courtesy made immediately accessible to the casual busy reader by an invitatory link from the intro "lede". There is no clear description of the tahash: the meaning of the word remains obscure (Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., Vol. 19 SOM-TN, page 435 "TAHASH") It could be blue-dyed leather or the hide of an enormous rainbow-colored unicorn. Or leather....

Concision: Each segment of the article is concise. (and after a great deal of work trying to make it so over the past 2 weeks is also now NPOV)

As for trying to absorb all the information in the article: 45 centuries of interpretation is a lot to absorb. All of the relevant information necessary for the casual reader to know is contained in the first paragraph, including the fact that it has been debated for centuries. This much is clearly accessible. Nearly all of the articles in Wikipedia provide in the lead paragraph the same brief condensation of material treated in more detail in the bodies of the articles.

I see nothing wrong with a move making the "brief summary" immediately available following the table of contents. Other readers will wish to know more in-depth causes for the incredible variety of Biblical interpretations of a single word, the kind of in-depth treatment as has been offered in a multitude of other Wikipedia articles.

I am opposed to revisionist distortions and the presentation of what is so obviously a controverted subject as if it were a simple matter. If it were not notable, if it were not controversial, there would not be so much protest over the content of this article. If it were not complex the article would be a paragraph. Nevertheless it does simply say that the subject has been debated for centuries: "and these are the interpretations." (Choose your favorite period in history.) This is hardly what a guy would call a "difficult concept" to absorb.

Unlike most other articles in Wikipedia, this article has been subjected to immediate demands for verifiable sources supporting nearly every sentence in it. Where the support has been provided earlier in the article or at the head of a section, it has been ignored or passed over unnoticed, unread, and readers taking issue with a statement they reject have said no verifiable source has been cited (when in fact it was cited often only two sentences before!) So all right, the citations have been made for them where they demanded them, on site, at the very spot where the objection is raised. It's hard to tell if they have short memories, just didn't read the footnote support, or are simply looking for a pretext to get rid of material they reject as unacceptable and against what they've always been told and believed. The multiple citations inline have been demanded by the readers, and so have been provided accordingly for the "poor reader".

As I suggested above, in another section, the entire Etymology section could be removed, leaving the historical list of Biblical Translations in chronological order, followed by the Summary of current meanings (with substantiating footnotes). Who could argue with the fact that this word has been translated all of these ways? There will then always be those who will afterward demand reliable sources, sources which have been provided in the current version but which will be omitted by such an abbreviation. After it has been abbreviated, there will then follow demands from subsequent readers for complete removal of the article as being (now) unsupported by documentation (and they would be right)—which will delight those who do not believe or want to hear or even want it to be known, that there has been in fact a variety of historically documented interpretations of the word תחשים by Jewish authorities and Bible translators, which do not accord with the varied opinions of the Sages in the Talmud, or with the traditional belief in the miraculously created, enormous, one-horned, six-colored rainbow beast of legend killed freshly right there under Moses.

A concise description of the tahash was originally (emphasis original) written by Hermitstudy, which looked and sounded like a quotation from somewhere, but which seems to have been synthesized by him from widely scattered statements in Rabbinic literature which proved nearly impossible to trace to their sources and were probably altered anyway. I was not alone in wanting to get rid of it after making a futile attempt to find the source. There was consensus on that. I have these past few days been thinking about going through the Talmud and other sources quoted in the article to glean actual verbatim statements about the tahash, with references to the speakers/writers/texts, and making a brief listed description of it to put in the article, for those who only want a simple description.

Wikipedia is committed to presenting all points of view. In this case, all points of view covers a lot of ground, and makes a longer article. I do wish someone would come up with a documented, extant, well-known, historical written source that explicitly interprets tahash as an animal, and not as just a kind of leather, skin or hide, in the centuries before the Talmud. This would really balance all those sources before the 2nd century CE that only interpret it as a color (blue).

A sprawling research paper is over 100 pages in length: 50,000 words minimum. This article is not even close. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is gibberish--a set of mentions and endless belaborings over those mentions of a word. And what was that about a giraffe? Drmies (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually read the article you would have seen for yourself where the interpretation "giraffe" came from and you would have found no cause for asking about it. "Read everything before doing anything" (always good advice!) Just what did you expect in an article presenting all points of view about a "sacred word" that all scholars acknowledge is obscure today and has had a multitude of interpretations by sages and linguists over a period of 4 millenia? --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Drmies for some excellent edits. There is still alot of work to do to make this article readable. Michael - Thank you for not edit warring and using the talk page. I was wondering if there is a place for the long list of bulleted translation that Michael created. It was removed in edit #411302986. Could we source it and use it instead of lots of long paragraphs? Joe407 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe, that list is perfectly usable in an essay or book on the term, but I don't see how it's of use here--see WP:IINFO, item 7. Now, and this is a point that extends to the entire article, if any of that material were synthesized in a secondary source, that source would be great to include. As it stands, that list, as useful as it is in some types of publications, is merely a list of translations whose function here is difficult to discern. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Gallery of Tahash images

I added a gallery of images of the documented interpretations of the tahash through the centuries as understood by scholars today and mentioned in the article. I first consulted the policy of Wikipedia on appropriate inclusion of a gallery of images for the reader, for added understanding, having a kind of immediacy of comparison of the variety of interpretations that can't be gotten from the article alone, as it stood. It has been contributed according to WP:BRD, in a single edit. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• The article is not to be a lengthy discourse on the qualitative and allegorical differences between different shades of blue. Note also that the policy you quote says "the use of a gallery section may be appropriate"--that is, subject to editorial judgment. You and I differ of opinion, so I have applied the R of BRD, and let's hope that other editors will come and weigh in. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing—the current pattern of edits vs. historical accuracy and NPOV

In light of the recent pattern of edits on this article, please see how Wikipedia defines the following:

• Not here to build an encyclopedia

—in particular, "little or no interest in working collaboratively" and "long-term agenda"

• Signs of disruptive editing

—in particular, "disruptive deletions"

• What is a troll?

—in particular, "done to inflame or invite conflict"

See my talk page response: "What's this article about?" (blue-grey badgers and other critters)

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael, you are making some misguided accusations against established editors here. I urge you to rethink your approach. The editors you are accusing of disruption, trolling and general antagonism towards the encyclopedia have made thousands of edits to thousands of articles, and have a knowledge of those policies you have linked. I think that you need to edit a few other articles, observe some other talk pages, in order to get a feel for how things are done here. Your actions have broken a few of our guidelines, but people have been patient with you. We respect that you have done a lot of research into this subject, the next step is work in good faith with other editors to summarize and edit all this info down into something that is practical to the reading public. Maybe take a breather, think about publishing your research in a web journal or blog, and respect that this is a collaborative project, and that you must work with others to have a rewarding experience on WP. The Interior (Talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not remove the fact that historically well-documented variant interpretations of the word tahash are being removed from the article—documented interpretations and translations which do not come from either Original Research or Novel Synthesis. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, stick to your guns. There is now consensus from at least four editors that what is on the page is indeed OR and synthesis, and it is being slowly and thoughtfully removed. The Interior (Talk) 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

NEW Smith's Bible Dictionary: "Tachiatze"

In going over the previous version of this article, I tried to click the online site for the (previously available) source of

"(Hebrew: tachash) The antelope. Tachaitze of Eastern Africa, bluish slaty-grey in color. Sculptured in Egypt."

No joy here. It's now a "broken link" (at least since yesterday). Went back to other previous versions having this reference: same "broken link". The reader can't now check the text by way of the link (but the page that is linked apologizes that the link appears broken, and in compensation wants to offer other "Christian" materials.) Wikipedia tutorial articles warn that this loss of connection can happen with linked sources, so it's not specifically a "conspiracy."

I had intended to go back and find the ISBN for this publication, the publisher, and the page number, for verification of the source. So after getting no results from the link I went to several general bookstores and some religious bookstores, all of whom said at the time that they could not find onfile any reference to The New Smith's Bible Dictionary. They had me look at their in-stock copies of Smith's Bible Dictionary, but that work turned out not to be the same thing. I then tried to find online references to "tachaitze" as the name of an Eastern African antelope, and a photo of the "sculptured in Egypt" antelope. Nothing. The newest encyclopedias and animal journals have no such listing under that name, as far as I could determine. I can only say that this is the result of my own research, based on what the ordinary reader would do, to find this source, which appears as if it would be readily available to every reader for verification of the claim, but it doesn't seem to be. If someone else gets different results from their own investigation, please let us know.

I would recommend that until or unless this source becomes generally available as a reputable peer-reviewed source, its (admittedly intriguing and provocative) definition "(tachash) Tachaitze"—and The New Smith's Bible Dictionary itself—be removed from the article. The reputable "Smith's Bible Dictionary" is not the same work, and it expresses the same cautious opinion as Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary and the Encyclopedia Judaica. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the article and links this date, I found the link to The New Smith's Bible Dictionary restored. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating footnotes

The longest footnotes (currently numbered as 48 and 49) give many examples of the symbolism of tahash, but are over 1,000 words. Could these be converted into a new section entitled something like "The symbolism of tahash"? --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Elasmotherium

Michael insists on including this paragraph despite the fact it does not claim any sources see it as a candidate for tahash. Could you elaborate which sources mention tahash in connection to Elasmotherium - maybe give some example quotes. It's not enough to simply say "read them" - I can't access the full texts, but you must have access so please clarify this. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

one man crusade against a one-horned animal

The history of this article shows that only one man has objected to published speculations by cryptozoologists that include the possible identification of the unicorn and the tahash. When I cited published sources as he demanded, he rejected the whole section in an instant (check the times of the edits). He cannot push his own single point of view to the exclusion of other points of view WP:NPOV. He didn't even say he has read the sources provided. He has retained other speculated possibilities including the giraffe, but only this one about the Elasmotherium he absolutely will not allow. His edits have shown that. The giraffe has more than one horn, yet he leaves that speculation in the article along with all the others as one among many candidates proposed for identification of the Talmud's tahash as an animal. The Elasmotherium has as much likelihood of being the tahash as the giraffe and the unicorn. And sources cited from controversial "zoo-rabbi" Natan Slifkin are just as acceptable as the sources cited from established reputable science writers Willy Ley and Karl Shuker. Slifkin he retains, but Ley and Shuker he discards. This article has not seen any other editor reject the Elasmotherium. The sources have been cited as he demanded, yet he still rejected them. They have as much legitimacy as Slifkin and the New Smith's Bible Dictionary have. No one else has rejected the Elasmotherium as a possible tahash. He can keep his opinion. Just don't force it on others. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears no one has speculated this except you Michael. That's why it was removed. Provide quotes from sources linking the two in response to my question above. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"No one!" Read the books. Get an interlibrary loan, if you have to. I only summarized them. These are not my own ideas. Your threat on my talk page makes you sound desperate. You are still apparently absolutely alone in your objections. It's you, rather, doing the synthesis, not me. I'd like to hear someone else with real clout substantiate your objections that this is "unpublished material" (oh, that's a good one!), and that it must be only a novel synthesis by me, un-backed-up by the sources cited. But you ain't gonna get it, bucko! 'Cause it just ain't so. (You're just one lone voice in an empty auditorium.) --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate condensed summary in my own words of cited published research material per Wikipedia guidelines is not "editorializing". And a picture is also "worth a thousand words" as evidence, also per Wikipedia guidelines. Get over it. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your paragraph doesn't even link tahash with Elasmotherium, so I don't know how you expect someone to go looking for support for such a claim in the sources provided. The sources surely substantiate the contents of the paragraph, but provide no link to tahash. The link to tahash is entirely your conjecture. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, Michael Paul Heart, Pontificalibus (that's "the man"?) is not entirely alone. Please look up on this talk page, and on your own talk page. BTW, someone made a valid suggestion suggestion on your talk page, User_talk:Michael_Paul_Heart#Google_knols; perhaps you should take that advice. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

you guys really ought to read more closely. the paragraph after the part about Rashi was about the general past speculation on unicorns. huh,huh,huh... made semse to me. if the word "tahash" is bothering you, then i've got a compromise: keep the paragraph (you say it's supported) as a general observation that the rabbis were not the only ones discussing "one-horned animals of the desert/wild", and give it a separate subhead. you cna't say its got no relevance when the tahash is supposed to be a unicorn. c'mon. (i think Drmies is Pontificalibus) i'll put it back with a subhead cause it makes sense as a related relevant elephant. 209.56.118.3 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No Michael, don't put it back. Just because some people think the tahash was a one-horned animal, doesn't mean we should add content about any one-horned animal, especially as no one else thinks its relevant (tried a search for books containing the words "Elasmotherium" and "tahash"? There aren't any). --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

look, jack, i ain't michael, and you're being picky picky picky . your the only guy taking it out he told you get a loan. or don't you want to know? try "one-horned" and "tahash" 209.56.118.3 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I love the blue-collar tone of your contribution. Or is it glaucous-collar? Seriously, IP, do you and Michael really think there's a conspiracy to deny one-horned slightly bluish-grey animals their rightful place in the annals of sacred history? Drmies (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

More sources

Some more sources given in this explanation which might be useful, a couple of new "critters" as well:

Tahash; blue processed skins (Rabbi Yehudah, Yerushalmi, Shabbath 2:3; Arukh s.v. Teynun; Koheleth Rabbah 1:9; Josephus 3:6:1, 3:6:4; Septuagint; Aquilla). Others have 'black leather' (Saadia; Ibn Janach), that is, leather worked in such a manner as to come out dark and waterproof (Avraham ben HaRambam). In ancient Egyptian, tachash also denotes a kind of specially worked leather. See Ezekiel 16:10.



Other sources identify tachash as a species of animal. Some say that it is the ermine (Rabbi Nechemia, Yerushalmi, loc. cit.; Arukh, s.v. glaksinon. The word galy axeinon denotes the ermine, a member of the weasel family imported by the Axenoi (see Jastrow). Others state that it is a member of the badger family (Rashi on Ezekiel 16:10).



Others say that it is a colorful one-horned animal known as a keresh (Yerushalmi, loc. cit., Shabbath 28b; Tanchuma 6; Rashi; cf. Chullin 59b). Some say that this is a species of wild ram (Ralbag), possibly an antelope, okape or giraffe. Some see the one-horned creature as the narwhal (Mondon monoceros) which has its left tooth developed into a single long horn-like appendage. This animal, which can grow to be over 16 feet long, is occasionally found on the southern Sinai shores.

In Arabic, tukhush denotes the sea cow or dugong (Dugong hempirchi) an aquatic mammal which is found on the shores of the Sinai. Some thus say that the tachash is a type of seal, since its skins were used for the tabernacle's roof, and sealskins were often used for this purpose (cf. Pliny 2:56).</ref>

--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A footnote link already in the article takes the reader to all of this information exactly as listed here, and linked above. The reader already knows what a link looks like. Unless the text that included it has also been reverted, they can use that. They will see the other "critters" suggested there.

Third-party sources, please, of others, besides the Talmud and its commentaries, who also attest each of these candidates as the possible tahash, according to your strict interpretation of WP:Verifiability: the third-party sources must use the word "tahash" or "tachash", as you have pointed out.

Re your use of the above material in the article: I myself was reminded today by another editor that "some say", "some see", and "Other sources" (unspecified) are WP:weasel words, and therefore, according to his edit summary, that was why he reverted the contribution, according to his interpretation of policy. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Q

Is it correct that all versions of scripture cited in the article give the color as a blue of some sort? And is it correct that all other translations in the world besides those in English are disregarded? And if so, may I ask why it matters how English bibles have translated the word,and why it doesn't matter how other translations in other languages have it? (And then one might well ask how to translate those foreign terms into English, and include the history of the translations of those terms.) In all honesty, differentiating between all of those shades of blue-gray-whatever seems utterly trivial to me. This is, after all, not an article about interior design. Drmies (talk) 06:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an English Wikipedia. And the English translations completely accord with translations of "blue" in other languages. You would know that if you had read them. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, "English Wikipedia" doesn't mean "talk about English translations." It means the topic is treated in English. No more, no less. Now, that "English translations completely accord with translations of 'blue' in other languages" is of course your opinion and couldn't possibly be verified--and any linguist (including the Venerable Bede) can tell you that such a generalization about translation is meaningless. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

By all means at hand, list the other non-english-language translations of the Greek, Aramaic, Latin and Old French translations of עורות תחשים listed in the article, and tell us in English if they differ from the English translations of them cited here. The article already lists several animals. Just list the ones that don't translate the term as blue or as an animal. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll save some time by using the links you can obtain from http://bibref.hebtools.com/?book=%20Exodus&verse=25:5&src=! (Book of Exodus 25:5, short verse). That site lists several non-english translations of the Hebrew text. Then link us to the –[specific foreign language] to English– dictionary for the word they used as their translation of תחשים. That shouldn't be difficult. List your findings here. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes—just now occurred to me to remind you that the link to Bibref used to be in the article to allow the reader to personally compare the different translations, including the non-english ones, but other editors removed that link so the article was slanted now to only English (except where some Greek and Latin was allowed to remain). --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can use the term "blue" so loosely, as if all blues are the same in all languages and all translations. But I have a better idea: save all of the translation stuff for a publication under your own name, and stick to what is relevant and verified as to its relevance in secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're taking issue (!) with the verified translations of תחשים by the Septuagint, Josephus, Aquila of Sinope, Origen's Hexapla, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, the Rabbinic commentaries of Saadia Gaon, Ibn Janah, the Aruk, and Avraham son of Rambam—and the English translators of these works also—along with Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary and Bouchart, the Douay-Rheims Bible, Sir Lancelot's 1851 translation, and Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah. They are the ones who don't believe תחש means an animal, but a color, or a leather-finishing process.

You say you "don't understand." Right.

And, no, you don't have a "better idea". So you can just — take it up with the WP:Administrators.

Translations and citations, please, of other languages' translations of the Tanakh that use a color word for תחשים that is a different color word than their word for blue, indigo, purple, violet. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

<--No, I'm taking issue with your complete and myopic disregard for one of our guiding principles, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." See WP:PRIMARY. But you have been told this before; I am not under the illusion that my telling you again will make the tiniest difference. I can only hope that you'll stick to tahash and not apply your zeal to other articles. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources, please, to substantiate your claim that no one else in the world has translated Exodus 25:5 וערות תחשים as any equivalent form of skins of "blue, indigo, violet, purple" in their language. We are waiting for your evidence. (And it would also be prime irrefutable evidence that you know what you're talking about, and that all the material I have submitted about historical translations of color is absolutely false.) Here's your chance. Go for it! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Tahash identical with keresh, the legendary unicorn"

Based on the cited source Encyclopedia Judaica (2007), Vol. 19, page 435a article TAHASH (which states, "the tahash is identified with keresh, the legendary unicorn"), I did an online search with the parameters "keresh legendary unicorn one-horned tahash tachash". The search displayed no secondary or third-party sources outside of Wikipedia for verification of the claim cited in Encyclopedia Judaica. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Nevertheless, the claim in Encyclopedia Judaica is based on a statement in the Talmud: Shabbath 28b:

"Since there is the keresh, which is a species of beast, and it has only one horn, one can say that it [the tahash] is a kind of wild beast." (and a unicorn).

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This means we can now state: "Encyclopedia Judaica identifies the tahash with the legendary unicorn". OK. This does not mean we can now say all unicorns are tahashim or tahash is a subset of unicorn or "the lion and the tahash were fighting for the crown"...

Joe407 (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the meaning of the word "keresh" - is it synonymous with "unicorn", or is it a more specifically described one-horned animal that one might call a type of unicorn? -Pontificalibus (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The Talmud is the only source that says it's synonymous with "the legendary unicorn".

It doesn't say, as you did, that tahash/keresh is what "one might call a type of unicorn"—Encyclopedia Judaica says it is identical with the legendary unicorn.

See link to text I provided above (first entry) to Shabbath 28b. Encyclopedia Judaica simply repeats it. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought Saadia Gaon and others identify the keresh as a giraffe. Joe407 (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder to y'all: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." (See policy statement at top of talk page.) --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If we take seriously Encyclopedia Judaica as a valid reputable and verifiable secondary source to the primary source in the Talmud, the word "unicorn" is a translation of "tahash". The editors make the statement unequivocally, that it is "identical". In that case, "the lion and the tahash were fighting for the crown" (at least the Hasmonean crown). --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Example: the ursa is identical with the bear. The first word is Latin, the second is modern colloquial English. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

getting rid of the etymological timeline structure

Howdy, It's nice to see this article moving forward. After looking hard at the structure, perhaps, given that this is an article about the animal and not an etymological study, we can restructure the article as follows:

• Animal
  • Animal possibility 1 (source 1, source 2)
  • Animal possibility 2 (source 3, source 4)
  • Animal possibility 3 (source 5, source 6)
• Process
  • Process possibility 1 (source 7, source 8)
  • Process possibility 2 (source 9, source 10

And so on. Under each potential animal, we could list the opinions in chronological order (as Michael has helpfully provided) Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - a reader is far more likely to be interested in "tahash = or ≠ animal X" rather than a narrative tale of who thought what when. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. It actually is quite an interesting topic, but I can't see the forest for the trees. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I can help you chop 'em down! Look–—You guys've come back to a suggestion I made some time ago!:

• remove the etymology,
• retain the "historical record" of the "Biblical Translations" (3rd century BCE to 2010 CE),
• and list the current beliefs and opinions today about "what the heck" the term עורת תחשים / δερμα ὑακίνθινον means:

—colored beads, processed leather, the color blue, blue dye, dyed skins, antelope, big unicorn

—little critter (KJV). That's eight. (Animal skins of color, and animal skins of an animal.)

The "Biblical Translations" need only list the most respected representative translations of each as secondary sources (English translations) attesting the primary source (Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek). It would include the Talmud, and Saadia Gaon, and the other Rabbinic commentaries and translators listed in Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary and in the footnote to Exodus 25:5 in the Navigating the Bible II ORT translation. Attestations of reputation for these can be had from external links to other Encyclopedias available to readers online: articles on Septuagint, Vulgate, Rabbinic authors of the Jewish commentaries (four listed in the article), Douay-Rheims, Authorized King James, Young's Literal, Revised Standard, New American Standard, New American Bible, Aryeh Kaplan's Living Torah, and the most recent Jewish ones, Judaica Press Complete Tanach (Chabad.org) "t'hasim", and Scrollscraper Tikkun "ve'orot tchashim": that's a list of only thirteen.

An alternative to listing the representative translations, is to list each translation of the term itself: hyacinth skins, blue skins, black skins, legendary unicorn/monocerus, badger, sea cow, dolphin, seal, porpoise, the non-commital "tahash", "tachash": and footnote each of these with the name of the individual published work, or of each of the several published versions, which use that particular interpretive translation in the text (with dates of publication, 3rd c. BCE, 2nd c. CE, 10th c., 1079, 1610, 1915, 1979, etc.) cited as secondary and primary sources for the particular (speculative) translation.

Thank you, Joe. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make a start moving content from the etymology section to the animal or process sections. I won't be deleting or altering anything in these edits and further reorganisation will likely be needed when after I'm done. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have resectioned the article to remove the etymology section. Now the "process & color" section needs sub-sectioning or condensing. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll lend a bit of a hand, but I'll stay out of your way so you can accomplish with a free hand what you've set out to do so we can all see the result of your hard work. There are about two "tough knots to unravel" which I think I can untangle, but I'll not put 'em in a different sequence. What you've done so far is impressive. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pontificalibus - Good work on restructuring the animals section. The Processes & color section still has a good chunk that is an etymological timeline. I'm going to see if I can sort it out over my next few days of lunch breaks. Joe407 (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

That's great, I've been looking at it for a while and wasn't sure how to proceed. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Now each section needs clean up and I need to go back to work.

OK, I did Beading and Waterproofing. I call "not it" on sorting through Color. Joe407 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenge to find the one-horned tachash outside of Jewish sources

Where are the reputable published third-party sources outside of the Talmud and Rabbinic writings, and other Jewish sources, that say the Hebrew word tahash/tachash denotes the one-horned multi-colored enormous mammal that they describe? What non-Jewish natural historians past or present anywhere even mention "tahash/tachash" as the animal specified by Rabbis? What zoologists among the goyyim say tachash=unicorn? Only Jewish sources mention it, and Wikipedia (but only in the last two years—there is a very brief mention of it as part of Jewish tradition in the article Unicorn).

There was an attempt to put "tahash/tachash" in the Wiktionary, but it failed for lack of confirmation. Outside of the cryptozoological references, which have been dismissed by editors here, the creature never existed, and non-Jewish third-party sources have never even heard of it. An online search of non-Jewish books produced zero results. No one else has apparently ever even heard of such a creature called "tachash".

If there are none, then it's safe to conclude that the "legendary creature" never existed but is a fabricated Jewish myth—therefore that section of the article "Tahash" should be removed entirely. That would leave only the verifiable references to other animals and to colors, which still makes an interesting article—and the six-colored one-horned animal of the desert specially created by Hashem for the Mishkan evaporates as a fiction invented by Rabbis and not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia except as a minor footnote in passing, or briefly, as an historical curiosity of peculiar Medieval Jewish folklore. Not even the Medieval Bestiaries, Aristotle, et al, ever heard of the tahash. By the standards required by other Wikipedia editors here on this page, even the work by Louis Ginzberg is disqualified as a third-party source.

There appears to be nothing left. Unless Pontificalibus, Joe407, Tomwsulcer, and Drmies can cite non-Jewish reputable published third-party sources as corroborating witnesses to the verifiable existence of the Rabbinic "Tahash" unicorn, it should not be included, for the very same reason they gave for excluding cryptozoological works: they never mention "the tahash".

Please list the third-party sources here, or cite them in the article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Talmud text not valid as a WP:RS? Joe407 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Talmud is the Primary source for information about the six-colored one-horned tahash of the desert. Wikipedia policy requires Secondary and Tertiary sources in addition to the Primary source.

I remind you that this is a requirement that Pontificalibus and Drmies have insisted be fulfilled to the letter for any inclusion of any claim in this article that has been made as being in any way associated with Tahash. If the words "Tahash" and "unicorn" are not found together in any reputable, published Secondary or Third-party source they disallow it as having nothing to do with the topic and as being in violation of policy as totally irrelevant and as Original Research and Synthesis.

So —according to this demand, in accordance with the strictest construction of the letter of policy (forget the spirit of its intent), specific mention of the words "tachash" and "unicorn" must be found associated together in texts of reputable published well-known Secondary and Tertiary sources or the source is deemed by them as not valid and therefore it cannot be used. The actual words must be used, not synonyms or indirect references to "legendary animals of Africa, the Levant, and the Middle-East as far as Europe and Russia."

If their interpretation and application of the policy is consistently applied to all elements in this article, then any statement in the Talmud about the Tahash, however authoritatively made, is excluded, if the Secondary and Third-party sources do not include it in their texts and articles. The same rule has also been applied in general to texts in the Torah, because it too is a "Primary Source".

Earlier, a demand for actual verifiable sources for published Bible translations, in Third-party and Secondary sources, was also made by them. (see the edit history) You asked "why?" and I passed on to you the same answer they gave me. If you think this application of policy is unreasonable and outrageous, I agree. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Look at this Policy Statement from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia: Verifiability: Reliable sources and notability

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Given the requirements of this policy, not even the Talmud itself, no matter its authority, qualifies as a third-party source for a segment on the legendary animal tahash. The strict letter of the law of this policy excludes the Talmud, according to the literal interpretation of it by Tendentious editors who don't apparently care about Talmudic authority, but only care if some established reputable published reference work includes its exact words in their texts.

Paraphrasing or condensed summary of Primary Sources, such as the Talmud and the Tanakh and the New Testament and the Qu'ran and published popularized research by established science writers, is rejected by tendentious editors as "editorializing chit-chat and Synthesis representing Original Research which cannot be allowed" and is accordingly reverted as "irrelevant" and as "having nothing to do with the topic" because such material is "not found as having any direct connection to the topic in any third-party source". Published works with ISBN numbers that have been renewed multiple times, and have a world-wide readership, are rejected by them as having "no notability", even when published reputable book reviewers characterize them as "notable books", "notable works", "key publications". Hence, according to a strictly literal interpretation of Wikipedia policy, the Talmud itself cannot be cited as a source of information about the tahash without specifically inclusive corrobation of its statements and claims by Secondary and Third-party sources. That's the kind of interpretation of policy that I was highlighting when I said, above, "where are the third-party sources?" --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael, If you ceded my point earlier the Saadia Gaon is a commentator and as such a secondary source, what are the limits of that argument? Can we consider the Talmud a commentary on the Bible and as such a secondary source? Joe407 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I completely agree with you and the "spirit of the policy" that you refer to. The Talmud is a highly respected source, a sage commentary on the Bible, an important heritage and legacy of world civilization, and it should be used. But given the insistent literal interpretation of WP:VERIFY used by Pontificalibus and Drmies and the fact that Saadia Gaon does not say directly that the zemer has "one horn" would "absolutely" exclude even his witness and commentary as having anything to do with the subject (according to the standard being used by Pontificalibus and Drmies). I think now you see who we're up against. And I don't think they'll back off. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where are the Third-party sources that include "Saadia Gaon" and "tahash" and "unicorn" as being directly linked and connected together in their articles and texts? See what I mean? --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After due consideration, and after going over the kinds of edits they've made, I've reached the unavoidable conclusion that even if quoted texts from cryptozoologists, substantiating the possibility of the existence of real unicorns, and inclusion by them of documented sightings of unicorns by historical witnesses, are provided in the article, Pontificalibus and Drmies will still revert them per their literal interpretation of WP:Verifiability (requiring third-party sources as corroborating verification).

If this is not "WP:Wikilawyering", then they are acting in good faith—and according to their application and interpretation of the standard of "lack of verifiability by third-party sources", therefore everything in the article about the word "tahash" being a unicorn according to the Talmud must be reverted. That's too bad. But if they're right, it must be done. And according to Wikipedia policy on verifiability this is "non-negotiable".

Joe—perhaps you know of a way to knock their interpretation of verifiability out of the ring and avoid complete exclusion of the Talmud as the source for statements about the beautifully six-colored one-horned desert Tachash. (I don't.) If you do find a way, then the notable published researches of cryptid-investigating cryptozoologists can also be included (as corroborating evidence for the opinions of the Sages that the tahash could have existed), for the same reasons that apply to the Talmudic debates about "the possibility of the tachash as a cryptid created specifically for the construction of the tabernacle and not in existence since." Good luck. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I went to JewishEncyclopedia.com as a third-party Jewish source, entered "tachash", and got

"Search Results for : tachash

"There are no search results

"Your search resulted in 0 hits. Please refine your search."

I entered "tahash"—same results

I entered "tabernacle" which produced an article, which says that "tahash was probably a seal; in any case it was a less common animal than the sheep, which Friedrich Delitzsch ... understands by 'tahash'".

It didn't say anything about the tahash being a six-colored one-horned desert creature specially created for the tabernacle. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a search for "Encyclopedia tahash tachash" and there were no articles or definitions outside of those taken directly from Wikipedia that include the Talmudic definition of Tahash/Tachash as a colorful one-horned mammal. Same with "Dictionary tahash tachash". However, there are plenty of results for "one-horned" and "unicorn" which include descriptions of cryptids that match the description of the Rabbinic tahash. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael, this is not about Wikilawyering or anything like that - I just don't think you've perhaps quite understood WP:SYN correctly. Please allow me to give an example to hopefully clarify things. Say I have two sources:

My Primary Source says "the tahash was a one-horned beast often found near Jericho"...

My Boook of Cryptids says "unicorns were common in the Jericho region"...

...can I put in the article "the tahash was probably a unicorn (see the Talmud and the Book of Cryptids)"?

Answer: No! Primary sources are fine, I can say "the tahash was a one-horned beast often found near Jericho" in the article, no problem, because I have a source. Can I say anything about unicorns? I might think the unicorn a likely candidate, with my quote from my Book of Cryptids, but the important thing is does anyone else think it's a likely candidate? Surely if I'm right, and the tahash was probably a unicorn, then some other authors would have made that connection...however I search all my books for "tahash unicorn" and find that no one has. So, no matter how "likely" the connection seems to me, it would constitue WP:OR to mention unicorns anywhere in the article as being a possible tahash candidate. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unicorn" means "one horn". That means any living, extinct, rumored, or legendary animal having one horn. If it has one horn, it's a unicorn. The tahash has one horn. The tahash is a unicorn. One possibly authoritative source I consulted today in the Des Moines Public Library even says that the tahash is the unicorn: "that it was a clean animal, that it had multicolored skin, and that it was identical with the keresh, the legendary unicorn" (exact quote). —"Indentical."— If it is in fact "identical" with the legendary unicorn, then "unicorn" is a synonym for "tahash". Tahash=Keresh=Unicorn. One of the cryptids seriously investigated by reputable research scientists as cryptozoologists is "the unicorn" (the tahash). (Natan Slifkin's interpretation that the tahash is probably the giraffe with three horns is a departure from identification of the tahash as a creature with one horn.) "The tahash is identical with the keresh, the legendary unicorn." A statement in our article itself (which I did not make) states "Among the options cited is the possibility of the tahash as a cryptid created specifically for the construction of the tabernacle and not in existence since." All of the cryptids investigated by cryptozoologists as "unicorns" are ipso facto candidates as being the creature the Sages identify as "the tahash." The Elasmotherium is a "tahash" because it is a "unicorn". It is certainly a giant rhinoceros. And it has one enormous horn. Elasmotherium=rhinoceros=unicorn=keresh=tahash. Same thing. A=B=C=D=E, E=D=C=B=A, A=E, E=A. (Please point out the fallacy in this, if there is one.) Footnotes to the Physiologus point out that reports of the rhinoceros were probably the source of reports of the unicorn. According to the source quoted above, the tahash is identical to the keresh, the legendary unicorn.

• elasmotherium=rhinoceros=unicorn=keresh=tahash,
• tahash=keresh=unicorn=rhinoceros=elasmotherium.

Given the quotation from source above,

that the tahash is identical with the keresh, the legendary unicorn,

(and I didn't make the statement) this is not Original Research.

I ask again: Please provide the General-reference reputable published notable third-party sources which verify or attest as reliable authority the statements in the Talmud regarding "tahash" as a colorful one-horned mammal of the desert/wilderness which Hashem created for the Mishkan.

If there aren't any third-party sources verifying this—or none can be found—then all of the statements and quotations in the article taken from the Talmud (Primary source) which state that the tahash was an animal found in the desert, with a hide of six-colors, having a long, sharp horn in its forehead, an animal enormous enough to provide a skin of 30 cubits in length 4 cubits wide, will have to go—according to the strictly literal interpretation of WP:verifiability, which you yourself exemplified, above. "Why?" The Talmudic definition of the tahash is not to be found in the Tanakh. The Talmud is our Primary Source. But the Talmud itself has been criticised as unreliable, so requiring Third-party sources for authoritative verifiability of statements in the Talmud according to WP:Verifiability is not unreasonable.

So, please: give us the third-party sources as requested, according to the strictly literal standard that you yourself demand. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First off the unicorn is mythological creature, perhaps you'd read my example again with that in mind. Secondly with regard to the kind of primary sources you mention in connection with a subject such as this, we can say "the Talmud states the tahash was an animal found in the desert...having a long, sharp horn" but using only that primary source, we cannot say "the tahash was an animal found in the desert...having a long, sharp horn" and we certainly can't say "the tahash was an animal found in the desert...having a long, sharp horn...so it could have been a narwhal/unicorn/rhinocerus"--Pontificalibus

Third-party sources, please, to continue using the Talmud. You're not addressing this issue. --Michael Paul Heart 14:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one requiring third-party sources for any use of the Talmud. Are you trying to prove a point? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You have cited Wikipedia policy requiring secondary and third-party sources for any and all claims by a primary source. Claims by a secondary source, reporting others' findings independently of the primary source, require third-party confirmation. The Talmud is the primary source for all statements about the tahash being a one-horned creature. Rabbinic Commentaries are secondary to the Talmud and only repeat its assertions and are not secondary witnesses. By the standards of the Wikipedia policy you have interpreted strictly and literally, independent secondary sources and third-party sources reporting the same creature with the same description using the same word "tahash" must be provided, or it cannot be used. Don't you remember? Only if another source reported the same thing. Otherwise it's Synthesis and Original Research and cannot be included here. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, don't claim my position is directly opposite to what I stated in my previous replies, which you apparently didn't read. I said it's fine to use a primary source such as the Talmud as long as it's used in the right context. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"one-horned tahash" and the Talmud—excluded as sources by Wikipedia policy?

The legendary one-horned tahash or tachash does not meet WP:GNG according to WP:PSTS and WP:NRVE, and neither does the Talmud—see Criticism of the Talmud. The Rabbinic Commentaries and Jewish sources that quote the Talmud are regarded as "one source" with the Talmud, according to policy. "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability." Third-party sources are demanded by WP:IRS#Overview, WP:SEMI-N, WP:Notability, and WP:RS.

Third-party sources, please, for continued inclusion in this article of both the Talmud as a primary source and Rabbinic Commentaries on the Talmud relating to the six-colored one-horned tahash, citing independent secondary sources for corroborating evidence of the existence of the one-horned tahash.

If the six-colored one-horned tahash is "identical with the legendary unicorn", then all published secondary research material on the possible existence of the unicorn as a real creature, by professional naturalists and cryptozoologists, from the time of Aristotle to the present day, are verifiable secondary and third-party sources corroborating the reasonableness of the opinions of the Sages in the Talmud and the Rabbinic Commentaries which cite them as authorities.

If third-party sources cannot be found according to Wikipedia policies for legitimate inclusion, the statements in the Talmud and the Rabbinic Commentaries relating to a creature having one-horn, six-colors, called "tachash", cannot be included in this article. All the information submitted to this article relevant to the six-colored one-horned tahash might possibly qualify for inclusion in the article Unicorn, which already has a brief mention of the "Jewish view". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy you have not misinterpreted? If the Talmud mentions a one-horned tahash, this article can report the fact that it mentions such.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why?

You took issue with identifying tahash as the unicorn, and with connecting that identification with the abundant supportive documented investigations of reports of the possible actual existence of the unicorn from ancient times until now.

In the absence of independent secondary and tertiary sources using the specific identifier "tahash/tachash" as the unicorn, which is what you have demanded, there is consequently no evidence of notability that justifies even its mention in a Wikipedia article according to WP:Notability WP:GNG WP:PSTS WP:NRVE WP:IRS WP:SEMI-N and WP:RS. I am here applying your standard of a strictly literal interpretation of policy.

In contrast, the one-horned unicorn has abundant attestation—but even mention of it in this article is also excluded by you because, as you pointed out, "no secondary or tertiary source has explicitly said that the tachash is a unicorn". So by your own particular "literal interpretation of Wikipedia policy", even mention of the unicorn in this article is excluded. And, in accordance with this literal interpretation of policy, mention of the "one-horned tahash/tachash" in the article is also excluded, for lack of notability outside of the Talmud and Rabbinic Commentaries on the Talmud. I am here applying your standard of a strictly literal interpretation of policy.

You have constantly excluded morphological, eidonomic, cladistic and synapomorphic identification of the one-horned tahash with the one-horned unicorn, which has historically been identified as the monocerus and the rhinoceros and the oryx. Your own insistence on use of the word "tachash/tahash" according to your own particular version of a strictly literal interpretation of "Wikipedia policy" excludes every possible supporting verifiable reputable published secondary and tertiary source for a credible inclusion of the "one-horned tahash" in this article, as you have consistently demonstated by your reverting edits and edit summaries of explanation of your reason(s)—because they never say "tachash" or "tahash": hence, no notability. I am here applying your standard of a strictly literal interpretation of policy.

An example of your general ignorance and abuse of policy is displayed in your reverting edit summary of the repositioned placement of pictures so that they face the text "according to guideline" in which you say that there is "no such guideline", when the very guideline you said did not exist is found in WP:MOS:Images: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left.". I undid your reverting edit of the repositioned picture placement because the reason you gave was false, and the page did not "look messy". And afterward, when you objected that this policy on images applies only to human faces—to all appearances it looks as if you have never read it or that if you have actually read it that you did not see that there is no such stipulation in that policy—animals do have faces and eyes.

And that the "page looks messy": it doesn't—but your objection that it does, with all of this in mind, sounds like an invented pretext for reversion without justification WP:Griefing.

I have constantly endeavored to not let your disruptions impair the quality of the Wikipedia content of this article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

style (progressive sequence)

The article could be improved by "lead-in" sequencing, as has been done in the "Animals" section. For example, the "Okapi" is related to the "Giraffe", mentioning its relationship just before the section on the "Giraffe". And just as before those two, the "Antelope" preceded the "Okapi" ("a kind of antelope"). With this pattern in mind, the "Animals" lead-in to the section on "Processes and Color", the dyeing of zemer hide, would be most appropriately to "Tanning and Dyeing", followed in turn by the sections that deal with "black leather" rendered dark and waterproof, leading in to sections on actual dye colors, the oldest attested first, "hyacinth", "blue", "purple", "violet". There might be added to each of those divisions examples of the various translations in various languages which use those particular renderings, in their own languages. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

skins of tahash already on hand! (so "the tahash" never arrived!)

The Rebbe Schneerson and the Torah both attest that the people already had skins-tachashim on hand to contribute to the Mishkan. They didn't get them from a never-before-seen large animal that showed up just at the moment when Mosheh needed the skins prescribed by Hashem. It's obvious: The Talmud contradicts the Torah. Evidence?—

Can anyone tell us: On what basis does R. Nehemiah say that hide/skin tachashim curtains of 30 cubits were "seamless"—and therefore conclude that a necessarily miraculous creation of a previously unknown "תחש" was used? No such animal is attested anywhere. The Torah never states such a remarkable phenomenon, and it always stipulates the marvelous works that were done by Hashem for the people in the wilderness as signs of loving care. (For example, details of the sending of seraph serpents, the flowering of Aaron's rod, the declaration that quails were specially sent and the consequences that followed.) The special creation of such an animal exclusively for the adornment of the Mishkan is never mentioned among the marvelous works of Hashem listed in the Torah. (Therefore --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael - WTF?? The goal of a WP article is to report the facts, not make them or adjudicate as to which ones are correct. I don't care on what basis Justin Beiber decided that Greenland is a small island off the coast of New South Wales. If he said it, I can put it in the article on Beiber, Greenland, or NSW. The Talmud is a legit source and it is not our job here to decide if we agree with R' Nechemia. (In the event that R' Nechemia was a WP editor and made his statement in a WP article unsourced, we could call him out for WP:OR.) Joe407 (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Facts. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts" – text from WP:RS#Questionable sources. There is abundant documentation that the Talmud has been widely regarded as an unreliable source: see Criticism of the Talmud. Therefore, according to a strictly literal interpretation of WP policies (listed above), its claims that the existence of the one-horned multi-colored tahash is a fact require independent secondary and third-party sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. Strictly literal interpretation of policy per Pontificalibus and Drmies, exemplified by their unyielding rejection of research supportive of the Talmud, on the strictly literal grounds that the research sources cited 'do not use the actual word "tachash/tahash".' I am fully aware of the spirit of Wikipedia policy. This is not it. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In their case, I heartily agree with the statement you made, above, and I apply it to them: It is not their job here to decide if they agree with cited sources of research by reputably established scientists with doctoral degrees who have investigated the possible existence of enormous one-horned creatures as reality, and submitted as support for the claims about the enormous multi-colored one-horned tahash in the Talmud as a reality. (The claim that a one-horned animal is not a "unicorn" is utterly specious.) It is not their job to adjudicate the applicability of research on the general category of rumored one-horned animals to the tahash of the Talmud. But if their interpretation is legit, then it applies in the same way to the Talmud. Third-party sources, please. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. If you disagree with someone's interpretation of policy, you don't widely extend that literal interpretation to other things so as to prove a WP:POINT. To do so causes disruption and wastes other editors' time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is you who disrupted WP:NPOV in order to exclude other particular points of view based on a technicality. If policy is applied only to some contributions, but not to all, that is the most basic form of violation of NPOV. WP:WL

Regarding "cryptid":

No source outside of Wikipedia—more specifically, outside this article—says "tahash is a cryptid", and "tahash" is not listed among the cryptids investigated by cryptozoologists (so says Pontificalibus, et al, but that is their interpretation, in order to make their point). This was fully pointed out numerous times: the word "tachash" is not used by cryptozoologists, so on the basis of this technicality (and in violation of the spirit of the policy) the opposing editors reverted the cited sources with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with the subject".

On this basis, with this interpretation, to say "the tahash is a cryptid" is WP:OR, and therefore any such statement placed in the article has to be reverted, it cannot be included, unless it can be supported by independent secondary and third-party sources which actually use the word "tachash" in discussions of cryptids.

By a general application of policy to all statements, in accordance with a strictly literal interpretation, we cannot say the tahash is a cryptid. Saying that it is a cryptid is Original Research. It has got to go. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears no one agrees with you. Why not move on to improving other aspects of the article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"A community of two is no community at all. A ventriloquist is no committee." --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Oooohh!! Ventriloquist quotes!! "My mom was a ventriloquist and she always was throwing her voice. For ten years I thought the dog was telling me to kill my father. " - Wendy Leibman

Pontificalibus is not the voice of the Wikipedia community, but is only his own voice persistently Gaming the system, Wikilawyering, and Pettifogging. He persists even when solid evidence is given that his reasons are not reasonable. His charge, that the material I have submitted is disruptive, is false even by the standards of the Wikipedia policy he cites—"Making a Point"—see WP:NOTPOINTY.

See Past decisions by the Arbitration Committee regarding "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point."

I have on this page shown the unreasonableness and unintelligence demonstrated by him in his personal interpretation of a strictly literal application of WP:VERIFY policy, an application selectively used by him (or her) solely to exclude valid material representing points of view which he personally rejects, but which, according to a reasonable understanding of the purpose and spirit of Wikipedia policies, do not merit rejection, due to their relevancy. He is not willing to apply the same policies in the same way to material that he wishes to use and include. Doing that would exclude them. I have clearly illustrated that on this page.

His several attempts to block me have met with no support from the community or from the administrators, but have been examined and dismissed. He is the disruptor. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

undue weight given to "tabernaculi"

The recent removal of all other zoological taxonomic classification names for the dugong/manatee, leaving only mention of "tabernaculi" (and a parenthetical "Dugong dugon")—and the removal of the source-link footnote supporting the fact that its classification has been changed more than seven times, with the fact that Ruppell is not the only zoologist involved—gives Undue weight to the minor opinion and interpretation that dugong hides must have been the covering of the tabernacle. That is misleading the reader. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about wording it something like "It was briefly named tabernaculi in the 19th century". We don't need an exhaustive discussion of its naming history simply to explain that this was a minor view. --14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It would still be undue weight by its very mention without a qualifier. The footnote provides evidence, without an exhaustive discussion, that other zoologists did not share his opinion. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on two edit/reverts

Howdy, Rather than edit warring, I'd like to hear some opinions on two item that were removed and then reinstated by Michael.

1. Connecting the Yiddish word for buttock with the arabic word for dugong.
2. Removal of a picture illustrating a color the sky is in the evening.

Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of tuches / tukhas / tukhesh is the same at root: "underneath, bottom". The article's footnote link to the Ectaco English-Arabic Dictionary with Arabic spelling of "manatee/dugong", "dolphin", and "underneath", "bottom", demonstrates the underlying cognate root common to both tukhes and tokhas: underneath, below, bottom. The sea mammals denoted by the Arabic word tukhesh are from "underneath", from "below" (the surface of the deep).

The picture necessarily shows the reader with color vision the surprising fact that the two deep colors of the evening sky and the covering of the model are identical, which is not so evident if no example of that fact is shown. The normal response to "color of the sky" is to immediately understand the phrase to mean sky blue. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

See the following edits and summaries:

1. "There is also no source describing a similarity between Arabic and Hebrew letters for tukhesh and tachash". See the section of this article: "Dugong": "This translation is based upon the similarity between the Hebrew tachash and the Arabic word tukhas or tukhesh, which means dugong."
2. "it is evident editor does not want reader to see color of eve. sky identical with tahash cover in photo of the Mishkan". The caption was subsequently expanded with added text explaining the relevancy of the color of the sky at evening to the identical color of the outer covering of the Mishkan in the photo above it. The photo of the color of the sky at evening adds to the understanding of the reader in accordance with WP:Images:Pertinence and encyclopedic nature "informs readers by providing visual information", in direct contrast to the opinion that it adds nothing to the article.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing "unclean" from article

The recent reverts by Joe407 are puzzling and remove useful information from the article, actually degrading its informative content. Readers may not be aware that several of the animals listed in the article as proposed by Biblical translators and interpreters are classified "unclean" "abominable" "abhorrent" "loathsome" (depending on the translation) and are not to be touched when they are dead. This is according to the eleventh chapter of Leviticus: they don't have fins and scales, and they don't have divided hooves or chew the cud. Surely this adds to their knowledge of the subject. Removal of information from "Cryptid" supporting the fact that ancient peoples after the time of Moses knew nothing of an animal never seen after the making of the Tabernacle, and therefore could not have seen it, is also puzzling. Removal from the "okapi" section of the fact that eight years after the discovery of the Okapi and discovery of its carving in Egypt S. M. Perlman suggested that this multi-colored animal was the ancient tahash is also puzzling. These are facts that add to the article and add to the knowledge of the reader. I put them back. Makes me wonder if Joe has an agenda which prompts him to remove facts that he does not want the reader to know. What harm can this information do? If he is acting in good faith, please tell us how, and explain why the information had to be removed. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael - the problem in both of these cases is WP:OR and conjecture. None of the sources point to kosher or non-kosher affecting the translation of the term. The exception is the discussion in the Talmud and that is the only place that the topic should be dealt with. Joe407 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Several of the second and third-hand sources cited in the article also discuss the "problem" of an animal being clean or unclean (Holman, Barnes, etc.) as being a reasonable or unreasonable possibility as the meaning of tahash, so these sources do in fact point to kosher or non-kosher as affecting the reliability of the translation of the term.

Now— According to your own OR, and in contradiction to the Talmud, do you really think the tahash could have been sighted after the time of Moses? The reader can easily come to this conclusion without being specifically informed that sightings of the tahash after the time of Moses did not happen, since the corroborating textual evidence is clear that no one outside of the Israelite people reports such a remarkable creature in subsequent ages. How could they record the existence of an animal unknown to them and unseen after the making of the Tabernacle curtains? The tahash is not anciently attested outside of the Talmud, and Rabbinic Commentaries citing the Talmud as their source. It is sheer conjecture on your part and OR to infer or imply that the Talmud might be wrong and that the tahash could have been seen afterward. It is likewise sheer OR and conjecture on your part to assume that no such creature existed, but rather that the Sages invented it, and therefore infer and conclude that no one would have reported the existence of such a remarkable animal in the ancient world simply because "it never existed in the first place." That's your OR. (And it was Hermitstudy's OR too.) You cannot jump to that conclusion without some fairly hefty documentation that they actually made it up. As it is, there is no conclusive evidence that they did. So it is legitimate, after the statement that it "existed only at that time", to cite supportive evidence that afterward no naturalist of the ancient or classic period or later ever reported such a creature. Yet you removed it.

According to your own OR, and in contradiction to the Torah, the reader without being made aware of the proscriptions in the Torah against touching the carcass of an unclean animal can easily come to the conclusion that without any contradiction these animals could have been killed and their carcasses handled and processed into leather to be touched by the kohanim with hands that touched the sacrifices of the altar. But being made aware of the unclean character of the animal the reader can ponder the "how" of handling the carcasses of badgers, dugongs, dolphins, porpoises, seals proposed as the actual identity of the tahash and comprehend the reasonableness of the question the ages have asked in the section on "Importance of textual, cultural and religious context": how is it possible that Sages, interpreters, linguists and translators familiar with the text of the Torah could propose an "abhorrent" animal "abomination" that is "unclean" as the covering of the Mishkan? The reader is made aware of a potential contradiction. Sources have been cited in the article, with links to actual texts, discussing how that could be possible and permitted. Withholding the fact (by reverting edit) that some of the animals proposed as tahash are unclean makes the discussions of their suitability over a period of more than twenty centuries appear obscure and senseless, even ridiculous ("what possible difference does it make?"), when in fact it was a very important point to the Sages. "You shall not make yourselves unclean." The article states that some animals are regarded as clean or unclean, but it does not initially specify which is which. The article, with animal specific information kept in it, explains the distinction and the relevancy of the disputes over this point. It is your own OR that concludes that this has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

I for my part am not willing that any omission of relevant fact from verifiable reputable sources should produce a Synthesis-by-omission showing the Rabbinic authorities to be unintelligent fools. If combining material in order to reach or imply a conclusion not supported by the sources is Synthesis, so is removal of relevant material in order to set forth or imply a conclusion not supported by the sources. That's why I put the information back.

I may or may not agree with authoritative Rabbinic sources, but I will not willingly allow any circumstance or omission or reverting edit to produce an impression that they are petty or shallow or lacking in intellect or intelligence in contradiction to their centuries-old reputation for scholarly acumen and skill.

It is my own considered and informed opinion as an amateur historian of more than forty years that many of the non-Jewish scholars and translators from the Middle Ages up through the Twentieth Century were delighted to have the opportunity to use their scholastic standing to propose as the covering of the Jewish Tabernacle something that according to their reading of the Torah of Moses was utterly unclean, abominable, abhorrent, loathsome, any unclean creature that would accord with their personal opinions of the Jews as a people. And had they been willing, they could all have equally proposed creatures that were clean, admirable, dignified, of repute and respect and beauty and of great value among the peoples of the Middle East, as the outer adornment and covering of the Dwelling of Hashem and a beautifully luxurious delight to the eyes of the Jews, in accordance with the statutes and ordinances written in the Torah, and in accordance with the tradition that the tahash was beautiful and the skins of tahash a marvel to behold. They may have had reputations of having love and respect for the word of the Bible as the very word of the Lord, but their proposals of badgers, dugongs, sea cows, dolphins, porpoises, seals, as sources of skins to cover the Tabernacle of the Lord, flies in the face of texts in the same Bible that say in the Name of the Lord that the carcasses of these creatures are not to be touched because whoever and whatever touches them becomes unclean.

A respect for the subject of any Wikipedia article according to a policy of including all points of view does not prompt removal of material relevant to the subject and readable, obtained from verifiable reputable sources primary, secondary, tertiary. That is why I first contributed the points you removed, and that is why I put them back.

Joe—you are a disappointment. Your reverts come across as a cleverly disguised form of vandalism. The history of edits to this article indicates that. It would be different if your contributions had significant historical or documentary substance and added information to the article, but they are almost entirely reverts of material for reasons given in edit summaries that are not well-thought-out, as pointed out above, when you said that none of the sources in the article point to kosher or non-kosher as affecting the translation of the term—but in fact they do. Your recent reverts did not significantly shorten the physical length of the article, which is now no longer a major concern, so it must be the content of the statements being reverted, and what you think they imply, that is the real issue at hand. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Joe even removed from "See also" the link to Shulchan Aruch with edit summary "no more relevant than any other code of Jewish law". The halakha on what is ritually clean and unclean is refined and clarified by it according to the principle that later scholarship takes precedence over earlier authorities except in those cases where the Talmud definitively clarifies a particular issue under dispute. It is utterly unhistorical, untrue and false to claim that it has no more relevance than any other Halakhic code, since it has greater authority than others according to most Rabbinic authorities in the world-wide Jewish community. Inclusion of Shulchan Aruch under "See also" explains how Jewish scholars and authorities after the Talmud were free to render opinions on the meaning of tahash that may or may not diverge from the statements of the Sages in the Talmud. It is completely relevant. He doesn't know enough history (especially Jewish history) to have made the edit revert of the link to Shulchan Aruch with such an empty explanation. It is very difficult to see this as an edit in good faith. If he had checked the facts to verify his opinion he would not have reverted the link. He didn't bother. Hence, failure to act in good faith. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the placement of the Shulhan Aruch in the See Also section, MPH's understanding may be correct, however, its addition to the See Also section is unwarranted. Would one add all the books in the "Linguistic origins and possible translations" setion since they mention the Tahash? The SA is book with hundreds of thousands of words. How many times does the Tahash come up? Once? This book has no direct link with the subject matter at hand. A book of Jewish law dealing only with this matter would be more appropriate. If the Shulhan Aruch has so much to say about the matter, it should be mentioned within the artile. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Every subject that is discussed in the Talmud (cited and quoted in the article) is in the Shulchan Aruch with its commentaries on all that the Talmud contains. Perhaps a brief statement in the article pert. to its principle of supercession of previous halakhic decisions regarding the "appropriate" use of what Torah stipulates as ritually unclean would be useful to the reader in expressing how what is generally proscribed can be specifically allowed: e.g. the linked article by Morrison discussing the possibility that an unclean creature was specifically commanded as covering of the Mishkan, hence the reasonableness of translators, linguists, interpreters proposing unclean creatures as reasonable translations of tahash. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For the relevant reasonableness of inclusion under "See also section" of link to Wikipedia article Shulchan Aruch, see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style section "See Also": "including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question". Per recommendation there "a brief annotation of the link's relevance" (it's a bit more than "peripherally related") I will include a brief explanatory statement with the link to the article Shulchan Aruch per the observations of its relevance I made above. That should eliminate reader-editor questions about "why is this here?" and "how is this relevant to the subject?". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that it is a book of halacha, does the shulchan aruch even mention the tahash? If so I'd be curious to know where. Joe407 (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Should we add Shulchan Aruch to each and every page about Jews and Judaism? Come on. Chesdovi (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As per above, I'm removing the Shulchan Aruch link. If a source in the Shulchan Aruch for Tahash is found, the relevant section can be cited in the text. Joe407 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was included because of the relevance of halakha regarding licit use of unclean animals. The annotation with the link to the pertinent discussion in the (specifically relevant section of the) Wikipedia article "Shulchan Aruch" —according to Wikipedia: See also— explained that. It's odd in light of this issue that the link to Kashrut early in the article was not also removed by you, because it too says nothing about the tahash. The relevancy of both is established in the Talmudic dispute over whether the tahash is kosher. The Shulchan Aruch defines more precisely than the Talmud the specific relevant factors to be considered in such disputes, without listing by name each and every possible case that has ever come up and will ever probably be considered in the future. The link here under "See also" was not made to an online edition of the Shulchan Aruch (I haven't found one), but to the Wikipedia article about it, which discusses the relevant contrasting principle of hilkheta ke-vatra'ei ("the halakha follows the later ones" [the decisions of the later sages]). This makes it relevant to the article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will also point out that under "See also" the links to the articles "Cryptozoology", "Jewish Mythology", and "Tabernacle" were not also removed by Joe, and they also do not use the word "tachash" or "tahash". Nevertheless they, like the article on "Shulchan Aruch", are related to the subject of the article, even though they do not say "tachash". There is apparently some very selective prejudice at work here. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Antijewish tract

This article is patently antijewish from beginning to end. The whole thrust of it is to use contrasts between the sacred tradition of Israel and the opinions, interpretations, linguistic distortions and translations of heretics and gentiles outside of and opposed to tradition to attempt to discredit the Tanach, the Talmud, the whole of Jewish Torah, as if it has no understanding and no intelligence. The uninformed and baseless wrangling among the editors and reverters of this article who betray their utter ignorance of the subject demonstrates why this "encyclopedia" will never be regarded as a "reliable source of information". Wikipedia policy requiring "verifiable reputable sources" is a supreme irony. As I have no intention of returning to this site, I will simply edit the article "Tachash" to remove all that is not truly relevant to the subject. Perhaps that may be instructive. A wise man knows his lack of knowledge and will not intrude in the disputes of fools who will not listen. --BenjaminDavidAharonDvi (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on Timeline

Per request for Discussion: reverted/excluded Timeline: organization of article according to animals and processes.

The article has been fully organized according to that categorization. This does not exclude a helpful timeline putting the various mixed-up and scattered dates and periods of documented meaning through history (in the body of the article) into a simple chronological order.

Historical chronology is not a personal Point of View: it consists of documented facts, utterly devoid of any Original Research or Synthesis, since no fact was omitted. A timeline frequently adds to the understanding of the reader by providing historical context.

(An outstanding example of this benefit is the The New Fourth Revised Edition of THE TIMETABLES OF HISTORY: A Horizontal Linkage of People and Events, Bernard Grun, based on Werner Stein's Kulturfahrplan 1946. A Touchstone Book, published by Simon and Schuster, Inc. Revised Touchstone Edition 2005. ISBN 13:978-0-7432-7003-8, 10:0-7432-7003-7.)

Why should a factual chronology be so completely and passionately avoided and withheld from the reader by editor revert? Does it in any way violate anyone's deeply cherished belief system?

The reverting edit summary did not cite any reasons of Violation of historical fact, Original Research, or Synthesis, but appears to assume there was a consensus that any kind of timeline would be completely avoided, absolutely excluded.

All of the dates in the timeline are from dates mentioned in the body of the article, from documented sources cited in the body of the article and its footnotes, and are therefore neutral facts, and none of them was omitted. But in the body of the article they are necessarily out of sequence due to the way the article is now organized; the timeline put them in order.

The most important consideration here is: "how does this factual timeline at the end of the article violate Wikipedia policy?" --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael - What part of Discuss this FIRST! did you not understand? As in WP:BRD, when a change is reverted, discuss it before undoing the revert. Please check your behavior. Now, as to the addition you are proposing. As you mention, this is information that appears in the article. I feel that the reader arriving at this article is interested in the question "What is Tahash?" The section you propose adding does not add information to answering this question. It answers the question "In what year was translation _______ proposed?" As such I do not feel it belongs here. Joe407 (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand "discuss" per Wikipedia guideline. In your edit summary you required discussion before "B" (bold edit), and that is backward: Bold first, Revert second, Discuss third, then repeat. I editted, you reverted, I discussed, and (after a substantial pause) then I put it back (see times of discussion and edit). I discussed the reasons and issue first before restoring the Timeline, and I added some time of pause for a possible response before restoring it. There was no further discussion at that time, so after further delay I reinstated the chronological list of all historical answers proposed to the age-old question "What is Tahash?", all the many historically documented answers that were discussed in the article (about twenty-five, I think). Answers to this question are especially historically conditioned, and the chronology displays that fact in the simplest, most immediate way that an encyclopedic work can provide.

You are normally right on top of immediately answering comments on the discussion page, but you waited more than two hours, an adequate amount of time for response and further additional discussion. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael, when I am on my computer I often check WP as a break from my work. As such I can often respond in a short amount of time. This is not the rule among editors. Given that WP is volunteer-edited and that people are in time zones around the world, the time between starting a discussion and editing (after assuming that no comments from other editors implies their agreement) needs to be longer than an hour and three minutes. Like maybe two or three days. For the record, I am against the addition as I feel it adds nothing. Let's see what other editors say and request outside opinions if need be. Joe407 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To elicite responses from other readers we've not heard from on this site before, I will put the timeline back into the article, so that we can hear from other readers their reaction to either its helpful usefulness or its ridiculous unnecessity. I propose about two weeks. Readers and editors need to see the section being proposed for deletion/blanking so they can evaluate it for themselves. The frequency of visits to the Tahash page is fairly constant, and two weeks should prove to be an adequate period of time to allow others (readers/editors we've not normally heard from) to respond, although a trial period of three months is more usual. I will include an appropriate template requesting input from the reader. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Michael you are not playing fair. This topic was discussed earlier and there was consensus that most readers were not interested in an etymological timeline of translations. I asked politely and repeatedly for you to discuss with the community your proposed change before adding the timeline back in to the article. There is no deadline as to when this article needs to be "published" and as such we can discuss controversial edit before making them. Perhaps you could show good faith by moving your proposed section to this talk page and garnering a consensus among editors? Having the section on the talk page will allow people to read and evaluate it and will allow you to gain consensus for a controversial edit. Joe407 (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Readers who would not normally look at the Discussion page must be made aware of the issue and given opportunity to respond. If they do not see the section, and the invitation posted with it, it would be entirely hidden from them and they would be unaware of the need for input. Let 'em see it. That's only fair.

I had not intended to return to this article until March 14th, two weeks. But this morning I discovered an error which I corrected a few moments ago. I myself intend to otherwise leave the section alone until then, to give other readers who would not normally look at the Discussion page an opportunity to become aware of the need for input/response and evaluate the usefulness or uselessness of the section. I suggest that you show good faith by allowing them to do that. Let's hear from other readers we haven't heard from before what they think of it. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I just did a review of the previous recommendations for restructuring of the article. The general consensus was that the article was too long, and that it was difficult to understand clearly; and for those two basic reasons cutting most of the discussion and then rearranging the subject matter into "Animals" and "Processes and Color" would improve its readability and intelligibility for the average reader. I agree that this has been accomplished. That was the consensus that was reached. The Timeline now puts the information into an illuminating historical perspective, which the article without it lacks. According to WP:Synthesis, "do not" combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not otherwise supported. The Timeline removes the possibility of either intended or unintended Synthesis of historical facts which could be interpreted as promoting an unhistorical and false conclusion: for example, that the multi-colored one-horned Tahash, and the interpretation that the word denotes an animal, historically preceded the interpretation and translation of the word as a tanning and dyeing process (not true); or that the King James Version's "badgers' skins" preceded the Douay-Rheims Bible's "violet colored skins" (not true). The Timeline "keeps 'em honest" by its sequence. The final "reminder" from Encyclopedia Judaica caps the whole argument of the article: no one really knows What "skins of tahashim" are. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would using "possible origins and translations" be quite unobjectionable (subject to citing, of course)? Collect (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Michael Paul Heart asked me to comment. I am not entirely sure if a timeline is the best way of representing the information under discussion. Having a timeline presumes that the situation/opinion changes, while I get the impression from the article that there are simply divergent opinions where one does not displace the other. JFW | T@lk 13:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I got a request from Michael Paul Heart to give an opinion here. I'm not quite sure why - have I made some small edit to the article in the past? I can't remember. It's not on my watchlist, nor something I feel a particular stake in. So I consider myself pretty uninvolved.

Having looked at the article, I think the timeline is (at least mildly) useful. The focus of the article appears to be to present, in some comprehensiveness, all of the different contending translations and glosses that have been given for this biblical word. As such it comes over as incredibly bitty -- X said this, but Y said that, but Z said the other, but AA said something else again. It's good to have the detail of what X, Y, Z and AA said somewhere in the article; but it doesn't make for easy readability, and the detail is a lot more than can be comfortably held (at least in my head) all at once. I think what MPH has done therefore is quite useful. It allows the reader to skim-read first to get an idea of some of the different contentions in play, then see the chronological evolution of different translations, then go back to have a second pass at the earlier presentation, this time perhaps taking in more of the detail.

One principle of journalism, which does I hope at least sometimes get applied in the science and maths articles that I sometimes haunt, is to think of trying to put over information in a pyramid structure -- starting with something quite simple, quite narrow, and quite focussed; and then only gradually widening it, deepening it and piling on detail. Compared to that the current article arguably front-loads an awful lot of detail -- which is why, at least in my view, it may come over as so bitty. MPH's approach of adding quite a succinct time-line at the end I do personally find for me does help to give a second, progressive structure and shape that all the different bits can fit into, making them easier to assimilate. So I think, at least for me, I did find it helped; and tucked away at the end of the article, it certainly doesn't take anything away from the article's principal readability.

An alternative might be to move the detail of what X, Y, Z and AA said out of the initial thematic grouping and into the later chronological section. Lightening the weight of detail in the thematically arranged sections, in line with the "pyramid" view of article structure, might make them less bitty and easier to assimilate. (Alternatively, more of the detail could be moved to the referencing/footnotes). My fear though would be that even lightened in this way, those sections might still come over as unthreaded and bitty, while the extra detail would make the chronological summary less readable, leaving the article with two contending hard-to-assimilate presentations, which would actually be a step backwards from where it is today. But worth still at least putting up for consideration.

On the narrow question of the article as it is today, personally for me I find that the timeline is helpful, and I don't think there's any way in which it harms or hampers the article, so I'd suggest keeping it. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

With regard to JFW's point above, I would agree that any timeline should not claim to be presenting systematic shifts in understanding -- the present section heading "Timeline of semantic change in meaning" is in my view not appropriate. However, something more neutrally transparent, such as "Timetable of different renderings" should be quite acceptable. Jheald (talk) 14:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Note the change in section title per my edit. Collect (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Per the above comments, the timeline does not take anything away from the article, and for some readers it is of use. We need to be aware of how most readers, I would guess, actually use Wikipedia, which is to read various sections which are specific to their needs, and not the whole article (that's why it's important to have good leads). Anyway, that means that you don't necessarily have to exclude a section because it may not be right for (very unusual) reader who is trying to read the whole article and understand and remember every part of the article as they go along. Because of this it might be nice if the significance of the timeline were given a few sentences of explanation in that section. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Grouping the various translations in one place is useful. The prose size is only 14 kb, so the article can easily handle the extra text (though it would be good to also expand the Lead to adequately summarize existing material). However, I also agree that the word "timeline" has inappropriate connotations. I would strongly suggest removing the word "timeline" (it won't be missed) and moving the purported dates to the end of each line. Those two actions would address my reservation. Since the material is already covered in the text, a collapsible list would be an acceptible way of addressing the concerns of those who object to scrolling through the extra lines. • Astynax ^talk 19:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I changed the subheading to something entirely neutral without any hint of Timeline ("Linguistic origins and speculative translations"), and per suggestion above linked all of the listings to footnotes with duplicated references that were already made in the body of the article—for those who do not want to read the entire text of the article first where they can encounter and read the first occurance of reference (which is all Wikipedia absolutely requires without any necessity of repetition)—and made links to texts of most of the English translations represented in the listing which have equivalent meanings in the same historical periods in other languages. If (absolutely) necessary I or someone else can enter into those same footnotes the publication data—however, anyone with a copy of any one of the listed translations of the nineteenth and twentieth and twenty-first century published Bibles can read within their covers the publication data and check out the text of the referenced passages of scripture using the Biblical reference notation, which is fairly standardized world-wide, and is therefore readily Verifiable. Verification that a particular version has actually been published is provided by the information in the Wikipedia articles about those particular versions, and cannot reasonably be construed as Wikipedia referencing itself as the source of the information in those articles, obtained from external sources. I say this here because demands for exactly that kind of "verification" have been made before, with the unbelievable edit summary explanation that the sources (the Bibles) were "unverifiable" without secondary and tertiary sources: —see the actual reverting edit of the chronological list of Biblical Translations on 02:54, 1 February 2011: "find a secondary or tertiary source". --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of a specific word in a source is one specific use of "primary sources" where the primary source is properly used. No claim other than the use of the word is proper, perhaps, but the use of the word is decidedly proper. Collect (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Astynax on the points he raised here. I also believe specifically that the lead section could definitely be expanded and improved, particularly inclluding a bit of clarification regarding the use of tahash and tahash skins, as that sentence is itself a bit obscure yet. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you! It used to be more inclusive, more informative, somewhat clearer, but there has been a persistent campaign since December to reduce the whole article to next to nothing coupled with moves to have the article itself entirely deleted and petitions to have me blocked from contributing.

Take a look at the intro lead in these two previous revisions, also the placement of the list of translations:

• 14:20, 25 November 2010
• 21:59, 17 October 2010

I do think that something had to be done about Hermitstudy's slanted POV (agenda?). It was a real mix of solid historical material, together with what appeared to be professional Semitic linguistic analysis, and his own personal Synthesis (I later did what I could to remove this last by revising the text to read from a more neutral-point-of-view). Take a look at his last version of Tahash, you'll see what I mean:

• 20:36, 2 October 2010

Now—back to the subject of improving the lead. We have the fact that the meaning of tahash skins "remains obscure". We have a kind of processed skin tahash, and the skin of a kind of animal tahash, and the additional citation of Saadia Gaon's speculations that עורת תחשים could be both (i.e., the processed skin of a particular kind of animal)—which means that Hermitstudy's "blue-dyed antelope hide" is not necessarily an Editorializing synthesis of Original Research, unless there is a demand by credible members of the Wikipedia community that some other source besides Saadia must be found using the exact words "tahash skins are blue-dyed zemer hides" (and I don't think it will be found anywhere any time soon). These three facts—processed skins, animal skins, Saadia Gaon's "black leather" from the skin of the zemer (giraffe)—could be included in the lead. We have the cited texts saying that the people had tahash skins already on hand from the valuable spoils of Egypt. We also have the tradition that tahash skins came from a kind of enormous, specially created, multi-colored, one-horned animal (at least eleven of them) that came to Moses in the wilderness that afterward was never seen by anyone, anywhere, ever again. We have the fact that the meaning of tahash skins has been debated by experts for over 2000 years without any sign of consensus. And we have the fact that there have been more than 10 different translations by various Biblical scholars with varying points of view, Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Islamic, secular, in the past 400 years.

It may be that the material intro as it was arranged in the earlier versions linked above (where they cited a small sampler variety of widely divergent translations) might be a useful basis or jump point for constructing an improved lead, as has been proposed, or one of them might be used whole as written.

Or it could be as simple as moving the subheading "Animals" to the position immediately before the section "Cryptid" so that the table of contents appears after the statements about the relatively recent Dictionary/Encyclopedia change in the translated form of the word from "tachash" to "tahash". What do you think, gentlemen? I will go ahead and simply move the subhead so you can take a look at the result. If you're convinced that it doesn't work, I'd have no objection to you reverting the edit back to what it is now so that something else might be done. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• If the article weren't bloated with minutiae, there would be no need for a timeline. The very fact that different people in different times have translated the word differently still has not been proven to have any kind of relevance whatsoever. I recommend moving 9/10 or more of the article to a separate publication, on Lulu.com. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)