Talk:Tachash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment

Within the first dozen pages of Claudius The God, Robert Graves mentions the ark as an "...ancient cedar chest lined with badger-skins dyed blue..."68.41.123.148 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)MDL

many sources state that the tachash is an animal that does not exist anymore. the same sources,(rambam ect.)also say that it was many coloured! this proves the fact that it is nonexistent. it lived in a very brown enviroment (desert and wilderness) making it the ideal target. being easy to spot, --Hermitstudy (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)the tachash probably was prey to many animals causing its extinction!

rashi, on the other hand claims its a giraffe. this is highly possible and taken into account —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyop3173 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the links under "see also" are irrelevant to the context of the page and obviously have an agenda that is unrelated to the topic and need to be removed 98.177.224.166 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC

I have provided all the additional information I had on hand, and could subsequently locate, to fill this article with all the reliable verifiable pertinent data needed by students and general readers. It took rather longer to finish than I had expected, as it was done in fits and starts frequently interrupted by my duties and other pressing matters. I enjoyed being of service in accordance with my limited expertise of 42 + years of travel and study and debate, and humbly expect that the material now provided in this one site, together with its links to other sites and articles, will show more clearly the reasons for changes over time and what is the most probable realistic identity and meaning of tachash / tahash. Shalom aleichem, pax vobiscum.Hermitstudy (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If by the end of June 2010 there is no objection, the title of this article could be expanded to Tachash / Tahash to reflect the more currently accepted form of the English word (1897-2010). Hermitstudy (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

A contributor (Aaron Solomon Adelman) justifiably demanded a legitimate mechanism that would allow anyone to show a connotative link from HaShem to the skin of an animal tahash. The now expanded article provides all the necessary data students and general readers need to see that the philological and cultural "mechanism" for such a relational link has been present since 1500 BCE in a characteristically Semitic form of word play. I am presently waiting for two library loans to see if the influencial Physiologus and Etymologiae include the tachash. If one or the other or both of them do not, I will edit in the simple concise statement, "(There is no entry in__________for Tachash.)" I should have that information within the month, after which my participation in this project should be concluded (if there is no subsequent vandalism.) I thank the administrators and the readers for their extraordinary patience.Hermitstudy (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal Source in Disputes

In "Disputes," after Source, there is an explicit reference to God (e.g. "can God be trusted?"). Considering that a number dogmatic religious scholars view etymological history as more "Document Hypothesis," should the article refer to the source, even semi-removed, as God?

My background made me almost edit this, but I was unsure if there was a particular reason from the inter-related background as to why God is explicitly referred to as the Source. As a general rule, if God has a say, you rarely get to dispute it. Job got his frustrations out once, a long time ago, and Abraham talked God down to the logic of only 10 innocent people need exist for a city to be deemed undamnable (poor L.A.), but as a general rule, the Abrahamic God, by default, gets to be not-wrong, sorta, mostly.

98.125.57.132 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC) EAZen\

The subject of the sentence in the article is "disputes." The argument is: "Disputes over the translation of any word of sacred scripture...has called into question...the integrity of the Source (can God be trusted?)" "God" here appears as one example of a revered Source among many, not all of them theistic in nature (see sacred texts.) Historically and academically, among theists, the observation of disputes over the meaning of the text, assumed apriori to be directly revealed by God, has been used by some as a pretext for the position that while the text itself is a reliable and accurate transmission of the word of the Source (God is assumed to be real, and the actual revealer of the words of the text) the Source Himself can be deceitful (which is overwhelmingly appalling to believers in the goodness of God)--and they will point to what they consider to be lies and contradictions in the text (which upon real in-depth examination, in the case of the Bible, can be demonstrated to be not contradictory at all.) (see "Internal consistency of the Bible.") They do not stop with the text alone, which paradoxically they do not question, but use the text to point to the Source of the text, and therefore consider the prophet, even Moses himself, to be a dupe of God. (see Jeremiah 20:7 "O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and thou hast prevailed.") Their position is like that of the serpent in Genesis 3:1-5, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." They are like the ancient peoples who believed that human beings are wholly at the mercy of unpredictable forces which mock human endeavors with opaque riddles and instructions calculated to destroy them, as proof of their powerlessness and their folly and their lack of wisdom (see Dualism). (For example, the famous question: "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Or this notorious observation: "God gave man commandments to crush his pride, knowing that he (man) can never fulfill them, that he (man) might see that he (man) has no power at all to do any good whatsoever.") The progression of doubts in the list under "Disputes" is in increasing degree or intensity of doubt, leading finally to absolute Skepticism, even Atheism. The link to God provided at that place in the article which says the integrity of the Source begins to be questioned takes the reader to the Wikipedia article "God," which includes the discussion of Dystheism, where it says:

"...a form of theism which holds that God is either not wholly good or is malevolent."

For many, this is like saying that all our food and water is poisonous, or that there is no gravity! The section "Disputes" is not saying that God is the Source or that God cannot be trusted: it is discussing the impact of "doubtful disputations" on the hearers: it is saying that, prompted by disputes over words in the sacred text, historically, individuals who actually do believe in the existence of God have called into question even the integrity of religion itself, of God, of truth, of knowledge. They have decided: "If the experts cannot make up their minds, and the text is reliable, then we are being mocked, and we shall simply have to make our own way." (see "Argument from inconsistent revelations" and "Problem of evil" and "theodicy.") The sociological and political and even theological experiments of history even to our own day---

e.g. Utilitarianism, Relativism, genocides in history, history of abortion, Catharism, The Hundred Years' War, Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition, the doctrine of Total Depravity, Wahhabi, Huldrych Zwingli and the Reformation in Switzerland, John Calvin and Calvinism, Humanism, The Thirty Years War, The Enlightenment and the Reign of Terror, Freethought, Utopia communities, Henry David Thoreau and Transcendentalism, Darwinism, Modernism, anarchism, Individualism, Marxism, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Mormonism, racism and the Ku Klux Klan, Nihilism, Spiritualism, Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society, Christian Science, Eugenics, Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood, compulsory sterilization, Social engineering (political science), Nazism, Stalinism, brainwashing, new religious movements, Chinese Communism and the Cultural Revolution, mind control, Satanism, Liberalism, Higher Criticism, extreme Fundamentalism, narcissism, Hippies, the New Age movement, the Sexual Revolution, radical feminism, cult groups, Jones Town, the Branch Davidian sect, Heaven's Gate (religious group), "ethnic cleansing," Transhumanism, bioengineering and genetic engineering without ethical guidelines or morality, the human wreckage resulting

---demonstrate the results of that conclusion (I can hear Frank Sinatra singing, "I did it my way!") The article implicitly asks the question, "How much responsibility do academics and scholars bear for the doubts and reactions of their audiences?" The secular version asks, "How responsible are journalists for the impact of their words?" The discussion in this section of the article focuses on the historically attested progressive negative social reaction to "disputes over a single word." When doubt is pursued far enough, the question "can God be trusted?" becomes a normal reaction to "doubtful disputations."

75.162.23.176 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: reverting edit of 15 May 2010

The most recent reverting edit caught my attention. I find nothing in the material removed which merited exclusion; on the contrary it appears to represent solid scholarly research. This is a matter I believe merits the attention of the editors.Hermitstudy (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

critical review

I have this night concluded a thorough review of the style and content of this article for accuracy and readability. All that remains is to provide forthcoming information to be obtained from the library loan of the Etymologiae of Saint Isidore of Seville: does this work contain any reference to the legendary animal Tachash? The Physiologus did not. Hermitstudy (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

removal of "Etymology", "Physiologus", Cryptozoology"

Pardon me for butting in. I'm new to Wikipedia, but I thought I should say something. The portions removed or "undone" by Aaron Solomon Adelman appeared to me to have adequate documentation. I took the time to look 'em up and didn't find anything wrong with the sources that were cited. It looked to me like the "tracking" of the change in meaning from dyed skins to an "undocumented" animal is consistent with an encyclopedia. The fact that animal experts from ancient times to 20th century don't list the tahash is interesting, and relevant too. If the parts having to do with linguistics were really incompetent, then only those parts should have been removed and the reasons why they're incompetent should be discussed here. The historical facts (like "timeline" of the changes by the Septuagint, Josephus, the Physiologus, Aquila, the Talmud, the Masoretes, and the King James Bible) are simply there as facts and don't seem to have much to do with linguistic competency. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this past week I did some homework (that's what historians basically do anyway) on the objections raised by Mr. Adelman, and I believe I have enough verifiable information to respond to each one.

• He says he's not a linguist. This would indicate that he probably hasn't got the professional expertise necessary to accurately evaluate the linguistic parts of the article. So we can set that aside.
• 1. He says the article is not an etymology article, therefore an etymology of the word shouldn't be there. I went back through this article's long history (view history) and found that from the beginning of the creation of the article back in 9 February 2007 through 23 December 2009, before "Hermitstudy" and others developed the Etymology section, it was basically an etymology article already—only it was focussed on the origin of the term 'tachash' as found in several historical sources and what it meant. Well, that's what etymology is concerned with anyway. The article from the very beginning of its creation is an etymology article about the meaning of a single Hebrew term. So we can set that aside.
• 2. He says the elements cited as primary roots by the sources referenced don't go back to the truly primary roots and only reference Hebrew. The sources cited by the contributor(s), and where the information came from, state that the elements presented are "primary roots" and "primitive roots". Over the years I have found over and over again that these sources have strongly established reputations which would require some kind of substantial refuting evidence to disprove that what they claim to be "primary" and "primitive" roots are not, but there isn't any. I know as an amateur historian that if you're going to go to the primary sources of the information provided by experts in the field, to check their sources for yourself, you're getting in pretty deep and are going to expend an awful lot of energy and resources in tracking them down. Most readers can't do that. Usually we can rely on the publications of experts that other experts agree with and haven't condemned as irresponsible and inaccurate. In other words, "who do you trust?" If they're not so hot (the sources cited), then you're going to have to prove it with documentation and expert testimony from sources we can verify. Mr. Adelman could even have (anonymously) referenced his own peer-reviewed documented researches and contributions to technical journals and professional publications and his own professionally authored works, without disclosing his name (assuming that Aaron Solomon Adelman is a pseudonym instead of his own real name.) He says the sources cited and referenced in the etymological section of this article don't directly go back to the primary roots. That's not usually necessary, even in an encyclopedia. The reputably established and expertly researched sources are usually trustworthy. So we can set that aside.
• 3. He says that the "digression on the sound of Heth / Het " doesn't belong in this article. The discussion on the pronunciation of the letter "Heth" appears to me to be intended as a kind of preparatory support for the תחשם / השם tahashim / hashem connotative connection discussed further down in the article. The fact that the contributor or contributors do not explain this ahead of time is probably the reason why a reader would think its inclusion is irrelevant. Academics used to the idea that someone would patiently read everything leading up to the conclusion or point they want to make really do need to tell us what it is first before asking us to read the support. This is an encyclopedia, not a detective story, and it's not fair to expect the reader to follow the trail without a map.

The same can be said about the zoological names for the dugong which suddenly pop up in the article without telling us that the following timeline of changes in the name for this animal deflate the importance that might otherwise be given to the fact that only one zoologist (Rupell/Ruppell) called it halicore tabernaculi (as a kind of "proof" -?- that dugong hides were used to cover the Tabernacle!) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia 1915 cites this one opinion (tabernaculi) as a kind of "expert opinion" that the covering of the Tabernacle was dugong hide without giving any indication that the zoological name tabernaculi is a single opinion which other zoologists did not appear to share, since before Rupell and after him they give the dugong other names. So I have to fault the failure of the contributor to tell us up front why he suddenly included the taxonomic nomenclature of the dugong. (I'll have to come up with some way myself of wording it so the reader knows what's going on.)

Anyway, the "digression" on the pronunciation of Heth is already present in that article here in Wikipedia. It just makes sense to use the information found there in that article to support the discussion here in this article "Tahash". The "digression" on the sound of the letter Heth appears to be appropriate because of the discussion further down in the article. So we can set this objection aside.

• 4. He says the English characters of Hebrew and Arabic words entered in the Google Translate window can't be expected to produce translations of them. That's true. But according to the immediate context in the article the links to Google Translate were specifically provided mainly for the audio feature and not primarily for the translations of the words. The "translate" instruction is apparently intended to direct the reader at the site to prompt it to produce the Arabic and Hebrew articulations which can't be gotten from the printed (or computer displayed) page of text. Specifying "Arabic" and "Hebrew" for the same spelled form does make a subtle difference in what you hear. But the Google Translate site also allows the reader to change things around for an actual translation of the meanings of the words if that's what you want. Just submit the Hebrew characters and the Arabic characters (if you know how!) in the search window of Google Translate if you really want a translation too. The audio is evidently all that is needed for the point being made in the article "Tahash"—that the sounds of the words are related. Translation of the terms would be interesting, true, but its not absolutely necessary, since that was not part of the immediate discussion. So we can set this aside.
• 5. He says the suffix "-im" [ ים ] is never used generally as a singular intensive form. I am not a linguist. So I got out my copy of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Fully Updated and Unabridged) Forty-fifth printing 1989 ISBN 0-529-06679-3 Regular Edition and looked at all the entries in the Hebrew Dictionary. It took two days, during my time off work. I got a stiff neck and a headache. I found 48 entries of Masoretic Hebrew words used in the King James Version which are plural forms with singular usage. I put 'em in a footnote, and then entered the note in the edit of the article. As I entered the info, the computer froze twice (erasing the text—I still had my notes), the preview feature allowed me to go to the links but not back again (twice erasing the text again), and when I displayed the footnote finally, the sequence was mixed up and scrambled! It took two more days but I finally figured out how to get it to display right. In review I think a few of the entries individually may not support the fact that "-im" is used as the superlative form of a singular term, so I will remove those (about 5, I think). But the majority of the entries support it. (And this is from Strong's alone, not to mention that there are other sources which I have used before which completely support the Hebrew in this edition of Strong's!—yes, I'm a bit embarrassed to say I even checked out James Strong's work, but I'm not embarrassed to say I trust it and use it.) It's clear from even this source alone that the superlative intensive plural form of [ ים ] was used as the singular form, intensified. So—we can set this objection aside.
• 6. He says the links to the letter Taw do not support the claims made for it (its meanings and symbolism talked about in the article). The linked articles (more than one!) for the Hebrew letter Taw provided in this article do make the claims for it that are presented in this article. It simply looks like the contributor of that part summarized what is in the linked articles. And those articles have references and cited sources too. Anyone who has read the linked sources in the article "Tahash" can see that! (I'm referring to those articles on Afroasiatic origins and Hebrew Phonology and letter symbolism and the letter itself, all of them, that are cited and linked in the article on "Tahash".) It really does appear that the links for the letter Taw do support the claims made for it. And as for his claim that "anyone else who knows Hebrew will throw a fit over speculation on wordplay on the nonexistent and ungrammmatical word 'THSM'"—go to the third footnote (about "yodh") in the section "Suffix -im as the superlative form." It's actually an ancient form of the word, before the 10th century BCE. But it becomes "nonexistent and ungrammatical" beginning with the Talmudic period and the work of the Masoretes. I put the information I found together with links to the sources of the information into the footnote, including a link to Gesenius' Hebrew grammar on vowels. From all of that, it appears that the ancient form "THSM" תחשם did exist. So we can set this aside.

Finally, he says in support of his position he has "a copy of Gesenius' Hebrew grammar nearby." Gesenius' Hebrew grammar was surpassed by the Hebrew grammar of Thomas Jarrett 1857, the independent Hebrew grammar of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles 1857, Bernhard Stade 1879, James Strong's Concordance 1890, the Brown Driver Briggs lexicon published 1906, and going forward, by the works of Wolf Leslau d. 2006, William H. C. Propp, and J. J. M. Roberts. So this support he cites for his position can reasonably be set aside, since these works (including Gesenius) tend to support the linguistic elements presented in the article.

Somewhat related to this is his removal of the sections on the Physiologus and Cryptozoology as completely irrelevant. They were relevant according to the brief statements in those sections that the tahash was not included or even mentioned as an animal. In other words, the ancient and modern experts who discussed animals real and rumored and imagined, the guys who might have been expected to say something about a mysterious creature, never said anything that indicated that the word tahash (or) tahashim meant an animal. This seems entirely relevant in a discussion of whether there ever was such an animal, or whether the word is a term for something else. So the objection about the "irrelevancy" of the Physiologus and the investigations of Cryptozoology can be set aside as well.

In looking at the history of this article, I didn't find anyone else who objected to the etymology section of the article on the grounds of Hebrew or Semitic linguistics. I said above that I couldn't find anything wrong with the sources cited after consulting them, or find anything wrong with their summarization by the contributor or contributors. You'd think a really knowledgeable Rabbi (and there are a lot of them) with the requisite professional linguistic qualifications to be able to correct this article—if it really was nonsense—who would be able to rectify the ignorant errors of well-meaning contributors, if he found any, with citations of authoritative documentation and references—you'd think he would have done it by now and explained it on this talk page. But it just hasn't happened.

In short, after doing some homework, and thinking it over, I don't believe that the objections that Aaron Solomon Adelman has given on his talk page have substantiated his case that the material he removed/reverted from this article "Tahash" was submitted by "a linguistic incompetent". I think the reasons he gave for the edit, once they are examined, actually undermine his own position! Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

After several days of "homework" and checking things out I just now completed what turned out to be 46 edits of the article responding to the objections raised by Aaron Solomon Adelman. It was sometimes time-consuming (what should have been about five edits total had to be broken up and submitted in a lot of increments I didn't intend) and the computer did not always display on the page as expected (mainly when Hebrew characters were involved!)—sometimes when I had almost finished putting everything into what I had hoped could be one big edit, in checking the links with "Show preview", I lost about 3 hours of work (twice!)—but I think in the end it was worthwhile. The only problem with the kind of objections and points he raised is that it takes so much time and effort to look into them and see if they're valid, and then if they don't appear to be valid or reasonable to find solid factual and verifiable reasons why they are not. Frankly, it was a pain. But it was interesting. I learned a lot that I didn't know before and that's always valuable. So in a way I think the whole debate wound up with an improved article. Without any disrespect, I think Mr. Adelman should be thanked, in a sense, for prompting the necessary effort to provide all the stuff I found out and put in the article in answer to the objections he raised. It reminds me of the occasionally fruitful debates in Congress (when they are) in hammering out legislation for the benefit of the country (at least that's what's supposed to happen). With this I think I understand more the genius of this form of encyclopedia. I think that's it, for now. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, about the objection raised with "Hermitstudy", where it is said (Re: Hashem (Tachash): " 1) T–as a prefix in Hebrew word formation works upon 3-letter roots, not full-blown nouns. 'HashShem' is never used as a root." After I read that, I looked into it. And I came across the interesting articles "Hebrew spelling" and "Mater lectionis". That prompted me to look further. According to Strong's and Gesenius and Brown Driver Briggs, חש is a primitive root, and השם and חשם are the same (and that fact was really interesting!).

Mr. Adelman says that T ת works as a prefix upon 3-letter roots. Well, חוש (Strong's number 2363) hoosh is a 3-letter root, according to the Masoretic text, and according to these experts, because a mater lectionis was added to it. This makes ת-חש — which looks O.K. according to the three sources here. And just add to this the fact that חוש is the 3-letter primitive root of both השם (Strong's number 2044) and חשם (Strong's number 2828), and I don't think the objection has any validity. That means that T really could have been a prefix to HS. Also, שם (Strong's number 8034) is a primitive word too, from שום (Strong's number 7760), and ה and ח alike are prefixes too since they were used almost identically. So T and hash and H and shem appear to go together, according to what I found in the expert sources, just like the article originally said, before it was reverted. Ta + Ha + SHem. I didn't make this up. It was already there in the article, and it looks like the cited sources support the statements made. The sources seem to support putting 'em together. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I almost forgot to add that Gesenius, whom I cited in footnotes to the article, pointed out that whatever might have been "fixed" rules of spelling and grammar were almost the same as non-existent before the time of the Masoretes, and even then were not always consistently followed even after their time, so that the objection Mr. Adelman raised to using T as a prefix seems moot. Again, I'm not a linguist but an amateur historian, and that means I look things up and check 'em. In short, Everything I read in response to the objections raised here appears to me to support the Etymology section that was removed and seems to come from verifiable and reputable sources. All of the objections made by Mr. Adelman appear to be totally without any justification whatsoever. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rashi - Old French word taisniere

As I read this article I was puzzled why a man with the intelligence and reputation of Rashi would translate tahash as "badger" when in another place he said that tahash had existed only at the time of Moses! (Another rabbi in the Talmud said that afterward it was hidden.) It didn't make sense, especially when the article says that the tahash couldn't be an unclean animal according to the Torah. Like it says, "why would a translator choose an unclean animal as the meaning of tahash to cover the Tabernacle?"

Once I looked up the available on-line sources about the man and saw that he was a medieval French rabbi, who wrote in Old French, it occurred to me that there might be something wrong with the English translation of his Commentaries, at least here (or with the sources that were quoted and used). The articles on "etymological fallacy" and "false friend" gave me reason to see if there was anything on-line about the word "badger" in French or Old French. I'm not a linguist by any means, just an informed amateur historian willing and able to look things up and check 'em out. I used what I found in the articles "Old French" and "List of French words of Gaulish origin#I-Z" and "List of French words of Germanic origin#T" and the Wiktionary entry for French "tani`ere". I summarized, cited, and submitted. If after carefully checking and looking them over I've made some errors, and some assumptions about this material that are wrong, then I apologize for the unwitting mistake, and in that case hope that someone who is a real expert on Rashi and Old French will correct them. I trusted the sources I consulted. I'm convinced that it was far better to do what I could to correct what seemed to be a glaring omission, than to allow it to remain as it was.

It's a fact that the information in the section "Rashi 12th century" was not misquoted, as far as the English version of the text ran, but the apparent contradiction between what was said in the Commentaries about Exodus 25:5 and Ezekiel 16:10 made Rashi look like a fool. It just didn't make any sense. Why the contradiction? I couldn't just let it go! So I added the information on what I read about the Old French word he must have used, to qualify what was previously put in that section of the article apparently based only on the English text. It now fairly well explains why the KJV translators used "badger" instead of something else, like "violet" or "antelope" (which always retreats to a distance in the wild), which I thought made more sense, especially considering the centuries-old historical reputation of Rashi himself for understanding languages and for teaching clearly. As I pointed out, "The tiny badger cannot be the huge kosher animal in the desert with one horn and a skin of six colors."

I do think that anyone who submits information on a person with a solid reputation for intelligence and expertise in his field and quotes his works should make sure not only that the facts and cited texts are correct and not taken out of context but that they are presented in a way that doesn't make that person look like an idiot or a fool when he's clearly not, and so that it doesn't reflect badly on that person's people or culture. You can't take it for granted that every reader already knows some of these things. A bad translation in English should be provided with some kind of explanation or qualifying statement to that effect. The fact that it didn't make any sense in the context it was in, and that it made a man of the historical stature of Rashi look bad, should have been a clue to the editor who submitted it. Apparently not. We all make mistakes.

Now that I've said my piece, and have compiled other notes I've made over the past few days (mostly minor edits that need to be done), I'm going to make what I hope will genuinely be a kind of overall improvement edit in this article, and then be done with it, for the most part. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Seven edits, plus typos.

When I first read this article I noticed that there were some things lacking. When I noticed that a huge block of material had been reverted, it occurred to me that I might contribute something. So I did some research and took some extensive notes.

The conclusion of the article as it stood when I first read it was slanted toward only one interpretation, when all the information already in it pointed to several different modern meanings. The article clearly needed a summary that included them. A Neutral Point of View demands that all the information be made available to the reader. But in this case, I got the impression by the end of the article that the contributor favored only the interpretation that tahash was blue leather—which all the information in the body of the article, taken together, did not conclusively prove. Whether or not that was the intent of the contributor, or the contributors, the result that came across was that only this one interpretation was fully supported by all the evidence. So I tried instead to include all the meanings it has today, and I wrote a new Summary for the end of the article accordingly, in what I hope is "fair and balanced reporting". That way the readers can decide for themselves. (I like the possibility that the tahash was the addax, and even that it was dyed blue, but that's not the only point of view.)

The article several times mentioned the giraffe. But no picture! It had pictures of every other critter imaginable that has ever been suggested as the one that could have been the tahash, including the badger. There were pictures of them. But where were the pictures of the giraffe.? No fair! (I'm fond of the giraffe. It was one of my favorites at the zoo.) There are plenty of pictures available, but not one of them was used! Now, I have to say that I don't really think that the giraffe was the tahash, but it just didn't seem right from a NPOV to include the tradition that it might have been the tahash and not have its pictures there too, along with all the others. So at the end I put 'em in. I don't really think anybody will object.

I hated the long list of edits that piled up because of my typo errors. It looked like I was trying to "own and dominate" the article. I regret that! It wasn't my intention.

As for the linguistics and translations, everything I added came from the sources I cited. I did my best to avoid anything that could have been O.R., and I made darn sure that whatever I put in the article was supported by other sources. Even so, my experience in reading other historical works has shown me that even the best-informed people can make mistakes because other information was not available to them or known to them. (And then there's the possibility of cognitive bias, too, to skew interpretations of the findings of research and keep the researchers from seeing facts that are simply staring them in the face.) So, if what I've put in the article is stupid, and not really based on a realistic interpretation of the facts in the sources I cited, then I can only say that it wasn't intentional and that I really have acted in good faith. I wanted it to be complete and I wanted to be fair. There were things missing—what I thought were glaring omissions—and so I tried to correct it so that the article would be better. So any experts in the disciplines of history and linguistics out there who can correct any errors I've made are welcome to do it. I'd like that. (No way I think this is "my" article!)

I guess that's all. It was quite an exercise, and I pulled some all-nighters for this thing, which reminded me of the warning in the Bible: "Of the making of many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Qoheleth 12:12 RSV –link Ecclesiastes 12:12) That's for sure! (if you can't take the heat, stay out of the boiler room!) — but it was also an education and adventure! So I can't really say I'm sorry about that. Just glad it's over. ——'Nuff said! Stay safe. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Using a table to align hieroglyphics

This is adapted from Help:WikiHiero syntax

Tj	H	S	tj	h	s	T	H	S	t	h	s	T	kH	Sh	t	kh	sh

-- John of Reading (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Article issues

I've tagged this article with a few maintenance templates due to some serious problems with it.

The article seems to violate the manual of style in multiple ways. Use of horizontal rules is deprecated, for instance (the ----). The article is extremely long and makes frankly excessive use of large-size, irrelevant images. Inline external links are frowned upon as well. There are a number of self-references. Stylistically, these problems make for a difficult read.

Perhaps most serious is that there seem to be few or no references to reliable sources. Most of the references section is used for explanatory footnotes or links to other Wikipedia articles. This raises concerns as to whether there is any original research.

Oddly, this long-extant article is not part of any WikiProjects. I'm not sure of which it should be a member, but I think the expert editors at the appropriate ones would be able to contribute substantially to this article.

I'm not familiar enough with this topic to make much of a contribution, but I do hope something can change here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat with the above comments. I came to this article as an historian and found it interesting. Shortly afterward a whole block of material was deleted/reverted for reasons I didn't find to be very substantial after I looked into it, so I did what I could (see above) after reverting the deletion. I will point out that much of what is in the References section is already labelled as Notes and Comments. About half or one-third of the footnotes appear to be commentary "as advertised", so at least that was straight-forward, or a kind of 'warning of content' if you will. Once I saw that I kind of knew what to expect. I read in the guidelines that some commentary is appropriate in footnote form as a further discussion of parts of the article, or for pointing out something that deserves more attention, and that footnotes are not entirely and exclusively for references to external sources. The function of the footnote feature doesn't seem to be reserved for a laundry list of sources (no sarcasm). I will say, however, that some of the unexpected historical facts cited and discussed were not what I expected, and in some ways not what I wanted to hear. One of the stated objectives of Wikipedia is to present as far as possible most of the available information on a subject, often including minority opinions when they are identified as not the majority view. Well, I got the impression, especially after looking at the sources cited in the article before I came to it, that the previous editors had a vague agenda, which (if it was what I thought it was) I didn't really agree with. It needed some balance. I couldn't very well just eliminate historical facts that are documented and established (only if I wanted to cover up something I didn't like!), but in some parts of the article the "other side" was just not represented. So I decided to jump in and do some "housecleaning", and add some other facts and points of view that I came across but didn't know before (but suspected were out there somewhere). I decided not to try to slant the material in another direction, and I think what we've got now is ambiguous enough to eliminate any charge of lack of neutrality. Maybe so, maybe no.

I got rid of the long dividing lines when I broke up the extensive lead into its separate parts. Other occurances of the lines reminded me of "box references" in other publications illustrating the discussion. I tried out the article without the lines (like those in Egyptian) and I didn't think it read as well, so I left those in. Hey, whatever helps! The link-references I myself have made were intended to go back or forward to parts of the article I thought would be helpful keeping the discussion together. At times when reading it I wanted to go back to a part I had read before and found it difficult. When I finally found it, and thought a "jump-to link" would help the next reader, I made a link. That way you can go back, or see a preview, and return to where you are in the article. It wasn't my intention to use that as a way of validating the material. If that wasn't self-evident then I apologize. An editor with more knowledge in wiki of what's inappropriate I'll trust to take care of it. I'm still too new to wiki to attempt decisions like that.

I was surprised by the observation that some of the images were irrelevant. I also tried some of the larger ones as half- or one-fourth size and they didn't seem very effective—in fact, in some cases, the reduced size did make the image seem totally irrelevant, but only when shrunk down. Could have used some examples of which ones were irrelevant. As it is I'm in the dark about which ones they could be.

As for suggesting a Wiki-project: I would have initially suggested the wiki projects (whatever they're called) having to do with Religion, Folklore, Bible, Judaism, and/or Christianity. Oddly enough, the article as a whole comes across in a neutral way as being about how to accurately translate foreign languages and ancient texts (that's what personally interested me) with examples (Oh, wow!) of how it went wrong and mistakes that were made. If a wiki-project on that subject exists, I believe that might be the one this article belongs to. My own favorite choice would be Anthropology and History. But if it was put in Religion, Judaism, or Christianity, I think the article has something to offend just about everyone. I hope the real experts will get in here and make the article as good as it can be. Like Mendaliv, above, I could only contribute what I know and can derive from the sources cited earlier in the article and those I contributed in support or refutation. --75.162.21.102 (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've read Wikipedia articles that have the same basic maintenance template posted above them that's posted here too, and they sat there for what seems like forever and nothing happened, as far as I know. Maybe this one will work out better! --75.162.21.102 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to sections of footnotes, they are generally used for inline references (see WP:CITEFOOT). There's a way of creating multiple footnote sections, and when it's felt explanatory footnotes are necessary, it's usually done like this. While inline references aren't required, they more or less become necessary once an article reaches a certain size (usually beyond a stub). You might object stylistically to a laundry list section of references, but a basic requirement for Wikipedia articles is to be verifiable.

With respect to the images, I would recommend reading MOS:IMAGES and the linked pages for some more information. The most evident example of excess images comes following the Dugong section; eight images of sea mammals is simply excessive, regardless of the individual image size. Images of dyes, images of the sky and lightning... more than one of each contributes little to an average reader's understanding. Same for images of dyed clothing; one good image with a good caption would get the point across. Images like this and this, while (I think!) being used to demonstrate the importance of indigo dye, do not clearly feature the coloration (consider Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement). When it comes to images, the law of diminishing returns is very very much in effect.

As to WikiProjects, WikiProject Bible and WikiProject Judaism would probably be the most relevant, followed by WikiProject Linguistics. I'll put some project banners up on this page.

As to the writing and sourcing of the article in general, I frankly am having a great deal of time understanding it, despite years of formal study in linguistics. Frankly, and I find it unfortunate as it's clear somebody has put a great deal of time into writing this article, it might be easier to start from scratch, after reviewing some of the sources to see how they approach writing about this concept. I really don't know where to go with this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of the article as a whole: it seems to me to ask "what meanings has tahash had? where and when and how did the word acquire each meaning? what social, historical, cultural, linguistic forces shaped its meaning? how did the competence or incompetence of translators determine its meaning? what connotations are connected to this word? is it really only a color, and why? and is it only an animal, and what kind? That's how I began to look at it after I'd read it over a few times and then decided to add some historical facts and opinions of the experts I ran across. Of course, there's the possibility that a mix of several kinds of approach was already simply embedded in the material with no specific focus when I first started reading it. Even now it has a kind of ambiguity as if nobody could make up their mind. But on the other hand nobody seems to know what tahash is, either. That much is clear.

I took care of some of the pictures as far as their size. I also tried to address and fix other issues that didn't require an expert. (the recent edit summaries of what I did this evening should be clear enough as explanations) I also thought the summaries of interpretations at the end of the article could each use a thumbnail image as a reminder of each interpretation covered by the article. With that, good night! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox layout frustration

I just found out that the layout of this article looks good on Internet Explorer but really looks bad on Firefox. I'm convinced in looking at the article as a whole that most of the points discussed there really do need the support of illustrative images. In some instances it seems like the image is there to say, "Here's what this version of tachash looks like—what do you think?" Its like a help to the reader trying to decide if it's a credible opinion or not, and a pleasure for others to see an image that looks a lot like what they thought it could be. Personally, I like the 4 different versions of the Elasmotherium (this could be the huge tahash in the desert!), and the single image of each sea-mammal looking "bluish" (actually seeing them pictured—I thought, "Nah!, no way!"), and the addax with the horns touching as one (I really think this one is the tahash), but the one that I thought was most appealing was the picture of the Thomson's gazelle, and that was a surprise. An experience like this convinced me that the images were important.

I had the appearance of the pages "just right" on Internet Explorer, but when I looked at the version on Firefox this morning it looks like a mass violation of MOS:IMAGE policy. Blocks of text I tried to keep together as paragraphs on Internet Explorer with the relevant illustrative images precisely positioned right next to them were chopped up ugly on Firefox with the images jumped down to places where they didn't belong. I've decided you just can't have both worlds. But if someone can make this article look good on both sites, then have at it. You have my support. The results of my own attempts to do justice to both of them failed, and just really violated my commercial art training for standards of attractive and relevant layout on both versions. (I'm still convinced that most of the points being discussed in the article really do need the support of illustrative images if the article as a whole is to be taken as a serious discussion and a help to the reader.) So I'll stick with Internet Explorer. My deepest sympathy for all you Firefox fans. (Firefox text is also harder to read than Internet Explorer text for us old guys—the typeface is smaller and composed of tiny dots that look grainy, not at all the kind of quality I think Wikipedia is seeking.) --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That kind of figures. My criticism above re: the images came from viewing the article in Firefox. That would seem to explain our evident disconnect before.

One possible trick might be using image galleries (see WP:GALLERY) if sets of images are deemed necessary on a section level. Another possibility is to create a photo collage from crops of the most illustrative images, which is sometimes done (I can't find a policy/guideline page for guidance on how one of these should be organized). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Techalet information

Can someone explain to me why all the techelet info is here rather than a one line mention and a "Main article" tag? If there is no objection I'd like to try and remove it. Joe407 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My own understanding, when I read it, is that there is a strong connection or connotation between the four words Tehom, Tekhelet, Tahash, Tukhesh, and that the immediate availability of the material helps the reader make the archaic connection, or helps understanding of the phonetic alliterative relationship—I would guess so that the reader can see that "blue" and "tahash" imply the same thing, that the skins were a kind of blue techelet. I would leave it in.--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I'm fine with the etymological connection being explained. At the moment, the article goes waaaay to deep into the details of techelet. I'd like to try shortening it. Joe407 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck, son! It's a dilemma I couldn't yet solve. What I wanted to separate and keep in was so entangled or embedded in other material that it would take quite a "sieve" or "gold pan" or "refining fire" to separate them, and still retain any semblance of relevancy to the main subject of the article. I tried it and gave up, at least for now. If it'll help you accomplish what I wasn't able to, these are the points I wanted to keep, which are already there in the material in the article:

• phonological and philological history of the relationships between the words tekhelet, tachash, tukhesh
• paranomasia on t-h, t-ch, t-q
• semantic change with cognates and roots showing original ideography
• the orthographic resemblances, especially in their archaic forms, of He, kHet, kHaf

Problem is, these are spread out over several segments and sections in an organically interelated and interconnected style of presentation that makes them difficult to separate. Perhaps a link to the main article, as you suggested, followed in the text by abbreviated relevant single statements, based on the main article "Tekhelet", in those places where the same information in longer form appears in the text, would work—I don't know. The original contributions seem aimed at reminding the reader of what was said in previous places in the article (as if the reader has a short memory), as a way of insisting on this point as important to the idea that tahash is techalet-dyed addax hide. That's when I went to work to provide other points of view, and a revised concise summary. The summary alone might be enough, except for the point of the article: How we got from the meaning there in the past to the meaning here in the present. Without the etymology presented, the current opinions seem to be too much different, without any explanation of why or how they got that way and where they came from. And that's the part I liked especially, as an amateur historian (means I haven't published anything, or even tried, 'cause I don't want the headaches and frustration).

I'd just say for now, beware of seeking concision and brevity for its own sake. It's valuable, especially in an encyclopedia, but it should never be the primary value. I've seen literature and research where it turns out the publishers insisted that they would never publish unless the amount of material was cut down "because the readers, bless 'em, will never accept it in the form it's in now". When this is done, and you have a chance to compare the original with the published form, you find out that what comes across as obscure or ambiguous, or "choppy and disjointed", in the published work, is quite clear and specific and unambiguous, and with a well-structured presentation, in the original manuscript or paper. Sometimes this chopped up version is the publishers' or editors' intent, because they are personally resistent or hostile to the thrust of the research and they want to sabotage any chance that the readers will reasonably accept it, and sometimes it's just incidental and unintentional, you can't always tell. This can happen with research that has laid silent for decades, which others (its not original with them) want to make available to the public again as previously documented findings, because it has for the most part been forgotten and has now become relevant again.

So I'd say to try keep the relevant key information on the connection between techelet and tachash, and not get rid of it altogether, since it too is one among many different elements that have been part of the subject's history. Ironically a single brief one-line mention would virtually get rid of it, by apparently dismissing it off-handedly as an irrelevant curiosity. From what I've read since coming to the article, it's more significant than that. But neither should it be overemphasized (and really, that doesn't seem to be the case as it stands right now, anyway). --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Joe407 suggested that the following observation I made on his talk page be posted here. I agree with him. —

"I wanted to add that I think it's very interesting that the Sages (Baba Metzia) said that the techalet from the chilazon was identical in color to the indigo dye of the indigofera tinctoria, and that this color was midnight blue-black. Since this is an undisputed fact, according to the Sages, and from this fact we know the real color (if not the tone) of the actual tekhelet blue, I really think that this point should be retained, especially since the deepest, richest, darkest indigo was regarded as the most significant and suitable color for authority and for bestowing respect and reverence on the great and the sacred and the holy."

To answer the question, "Why add all this information on Tekhelet to the article on Tahash?" — I can only speak for myself and say that I thought it was an interesting read this way, and I was glad to have the info right there in the continuous line of thought rather than break away to a link and then come back. Also I think it merits being included in the body of the article because it discusses the apparently substantial possibility that a kind of Tekhelet blue was the proposed interpretation of תחשים by the historical witnesses of antiquity from ancient Egypt through the time of the Seventy (LXX) to the time of Judah haNasi (aledinon apparently "purple") and Aquila of Sinope (huakinthinos "hyacinth blue") —before the development of the Talmud. It seems to be a major element in the meaning of the word:

"skins of indigo/blue/purple" vs. "skins of an unknown animal".

–(Fight tonight!—Don't miss it!—On PayPerView!)

I point out that such a particular discussion in the article Tekhelet might be deemed "more appropriate in the article on Tahash (and that) a link to Tahash in the article Tekhelet would be more appropriate"—and that would really be ironic! Since the various proposed animals are discussed somewhat at length in the article, this alternative discussion of color at length seems equally justified in the article.

I'm proposing that, since Joe407 and I seem to be at the moment the only ones discussing how to really improve this article, and a major edit is being contemplated, we should first have the administrators WP:PROTECT it to allow others to discuss this and other possible changes and reach a genuine consensus before major edits are made. I really do think his ideas have merit. What do other people have to say? And the proposal I made earlier, below, also needs time for professional Semitic scholars to respond. I think we should hear from them too before making any changes at this point. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Original research?

Since the possibility has been raised, and I have considered the possibility myself for the past several weeks, I'd like to say that there appears to be nothing to prove it, one way or the other. The problem arose, I believe, because some statements in the article appeared to have been made with the assumption that they are about self-evident facts that "everyone knows." And I think that's why no validation appeared with them. So they appeared to be WP:OR (original research).

When I looked at it, I decided the recommended approach "assume good faith" might go somewhere. After tracking down possible supports for the various unreferenced statements made by the previous editor/contributors, and finding that none of them was a departure from what has already been published in reference works and studies done, I did what I could to supply this missing verification or background info, which should have been included in the first place. It was an education. I was surprised that the letters He, Heth, and Khaf, were so similar in form and sound. It's as if the contributor or contributors took it for granted that the reader would know these things. That's true if you're familiar with the subject matter. But I, for one, had never until recently ever heard of "tahash", or knew anything about the original languages and alphabets. And I don't think most readers do, either. So it appears that there might not be any original research presented in the article. Just because I have never heard of it before, doesn't mean that it's Original Research.

However—it still might be possible that historical documented material which might be taken as verification is material that has been interpreted in a new way. I think the only way to settle that question is if some experts in the field of Semitic Studies could state one of three opinions:

• "Yes, this is a normative and accepted interpretation of the facts known to experts in the field of Semitic Studies."

OR

• "This might be an unusual interpretation, but it not unknown to experts in the field of Semitic Studies, and it is by no means an unacceptible interpretation."

OR

• "No—this interpretation of documented facts known to experts in the field of Semitic Studies is a new interpretation, one that to date is not yet peer-reviewed, and one that we have never heard presented or seen in any publication." --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of apparent WP:OR here that either needs to be cut or be adequately referenced.

Example:

The most probable literal primary root meanings of these four Semitic words appears to indicate a relationship to a perceived color range of blue-gray-black the ancients associated with mystery and dignity.

Where are the sources stating that these are the "most probable" meanings and that they "appear" to indicate a relationship? Without these references it is assumed this is merely a Wikipedian's conjecture. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree. I took the trouble the past hour or so to look at the edit history, one by one, from the first creation of the page, and at last I found that "Hermitstudy" 04:44, 30 August made the statement, apparently assuming (as far as I could tell from the context) that the material preceding the statement implicitly justified this kind of summary. He's the kind of contributor I was talking about, above, who seems to assume that what he says is "self-evident" and something that "everyone knows" without the necessity of a verifying source. And that's no good when you want to know if it's just his opinion. Even if it makes complete sense, it's still OR (or original conclusion). I suspect that the material was arranged to justify the conclusion. Something like that, if that's what was done, is devilishly hard to untangle, unless a fresh re-write is undertaken — and that ain't easy, McGee! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article length

I knew nothing of Tahash whatsoever before happening across this article and must say that it really is too long, especially the etymology section. It reads more like a book chapter or monograph than an encyclopedia article. Any hope I had of reading the section and quickly becoming aquainted with the current accepted etymology of the word was quickly abandoned. It needs heavy editing to turn it into a summary of established facts, as at the moment it attempts to construct an argument in itself, which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus, give it you best shot. Please. There is a lot of great info (sourced). I'm finding it hard to find the time to understand it all enough to cut it down. I'm going with a sectional approach and if you'd like you are welcome to do the same. I think this can be a great article but right now the biggest favor we can do it is to cut out stuff. Joe407 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pontificalibus and Joe: What do you men think about separate articles, as has been recommended: a generic titled article with definition, and the summary of current meanings; and the rest of the material separated and grouped by topic or historical period, with particular titles, and what we already have right now concisely grouped and transferred into those mailboxes or pages? e.g. —periods when tahas was referenced as a color, periods when it became an animal, (we already have the present day several meanings), and translations of tahas ancient to modern (the Bible listings), with a separate treatment of how it may have been mistranslated and what basis the translators used for their opinion of the meaning. (I already like the archaic forms of the phonetic and orthographic articulations and spellings and artifacts, but I have no idea what to call an article like that.) The suggestion for something like this approach mentioned, implies using the core of the present article, condensed down (into the generic one, I would guess) and containing a "table of contents" or "table of referents" linked to the smaller more specialized articles.

The current version is always available for reference, even if it should become a "previous version". You could always come back to it and copy and adapt from it. So if you cut down the current article today, you would still have that previous version for material you discover later you need.

( —However, I got to tell ya—–the thought of all those footnotes and external link codes having to be copied by hand, and the hours and hours of work it would take, already makes me too tired to want to try it, even though I think it would really be a good idea, like "going on a simple mission". As Detective Murtaugh said to Detective Riggs, "I'm getting too old for this!" [Lethal Weapon – see? a reference already!])

Have at it! I really wish you well. You have my sympathy. And my withdrawal from this project.

Hoo-Rah! stay safe. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael, I see no need for you to withdraw from this article. Quite the opposite! It seems that you have done an excellent job of educating yourself on this topic and are a valuable asset to this article. What you are seeing is described in the policy page WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. If there are any changes that are made that you feel are mistaken, please feel free to discuss them here on this talk page. If you feel that the edit is a gross error, hit "undo" or "rollback" and then raise the issue on the talk page. Your contributions are valuable here. Thank you for listening. Joe407 (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Michael, do stick around. I was planning to make quite a few edits to the article over the coming weeks, and I will surely make mistakes along the way. As you have contributed a lot so far, it would be great if you could pitch in as well and we'll try and get this article reviewed up to Good Article or even Featured Article status.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You both do me honor! I accept. I will join your assault team. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Separated articles: Titles from Subheadings

The article could be broken up with the subsections largely left intact. Simply change the subheadings:

• Tahash
• Tahash (Bible translations)
• Tahash (Afro-asiatic roots)
• Tahash (Semitic roots)
• Tahash (Egyptian)
• Tahash (Hebrew 20th to 4th centuries BCE)
• Tahash (Septuagint)
• Tahash (1st to 4th centuries CE)
• Tahash (Talmud)
• Tahash (Medieval)
• Tahash (unclean animals)
• Tahash (clean animals)
• Tahash (Medieval bestiaries)
• Tahash (cryptid?)
• Tahash (dugong)
• Tahash (addax)
• Tahash and Tekhelet

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, Let's give the article a bit of time with a BRD cycle of editing. If after a few weeks of trying we see that there are sections that deserve separate treatment we can then spin them off. For now I'd suggest leaving it all here. Joe407 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding proposal. I have already requested full protection. If the administrators agree, then that will make the task ahead that much easier. Others who may want to participate will have the original to consult. I think they would appreciate it. It would give them an idea of what we are trying to accomplish here.

This, then, is what we are proposing:

• Leave the article as it is for the duration, until we have constructed related sites.
• Hand-copy verbatim the sections that merit separate treatment, and give each a new but related article title. Some of these will appear as stubs, and for the time being each one will appear like a substantial duplication of the section of the original article it came from. This is only intended to be temporary. Once each one has been set up as a separate article with title, then it can be editted and refined and polished. (Shouldn't take too long.)
• Plan to relate each newly constructed article to whatever category or categories it fits.
• Include the template that refers to the main (original) article.
• Include in them links to the other separated sections that have been made into new articles, after they have all been set up. Barring the possibility of the legitimacy of such links, we could make instead a list of "See also— ".
• When this has all been accomplished, then we go back and abbreviate the corresponding sections of the original site! The newly abbreviated sections of the original article could then each be headed with the template that refers to the (newly-formed subordinate) related "main" article—the one that was formed and editted from the section that was originally taken from the original site.
• If any of the separate new articles do not appear to merit separate existence, they can then be deleted and the abbreviating edits to the section at the original site can be reverted.

But for the present we leave the original article intact and untouched, until we have surmounted all the obstacles and achieved our goal. I project a duration of 3 to 6 months to completion.

Additionally— Each one of us could take a section that merits separate treatment and do what can be done, avoiding duplication of effort by coordinated communication and intelligence.

What do you think, gentlemen? Is this a reasonable proposal? Should this be our strategy?

At the moment this is my best suggestion. (For my part I can only do something about once a week.)

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This is basically how we split off new articles, but it is generally easier to keep track of everything if we edit this article into shape first. The problem in leaving this article untouched, is that after creating and editing the new articles, we may find some subjects are actually best left within the main article. The guidelines WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLITTING provide some useful info. By the way, "page protection" is generally only used to prevent abuse, and isn't intended for other purposes. One of the main principles behind wikipedia is that anyone can come along and edit any time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago I saw an article (I don't now remember which one) which had the heading that the contents were disputed and that it was protected to allow enough time for a full discussion of the matter on the talk page. I was thinking of this in relation to the fact that the length and the unverified and unsourced statements were a matter of discussion. As for the subjects best left within the main article, I made a recommendation about that possibility, above: "If any of the separate new articles do not appear to merit separate existence..." Also, there is the risk that material of value may be deleted, and would later have to be retrieved by hand from an earlier version, since reverting the new edit might also remove valuable information that it too contributes. In any case—Your points are well taken. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

"::*Leave the article as it is for the duration, until we have constructed related sites." No. I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I oppose creating new articles. Allow for the community of editors to cycle this article through WP:BRD in attempts to make it more concise and if after a while we see that the length is a vital need we can then discuss splitting the article. Joe407 (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the suggestion to create new, shorter articles using the main article as a summary of them comes from the heading placed at the top of the article—the one with the whisk broom icon. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. I added the template to indicate to passing editors that the article is too long, but forgot that it suggests splitting off new articles but not initially attempting to cut the article to size.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

kosher vs non-kosher animals

What is the source that non-kosher animals are excluded from being the Tahash? From the text that currently is in the article, this assertions seems to be sourced to the bible verses about "stay away from non-kosher stuff". This is neither a verse stating that the tahash was a kosher animal, nor a cited work making this assertion. As such it seems to be original research on the part of the article. Am I missing something or can we remove the non-kosher exclusion as WP:OR? Joe407 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I found several references suggesting it might not have been kosher (e.g. 1) so this bit has to go. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced this now - it's reasoning like this that is just plain wrong that constitutes the main problem with the article. Fortunately there are references to be found. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Cryptozoology

What this section actually says can be summarised as "Cryptozoologists never mentioned Tahash" and then the conclusion is drawn "therefore it wasn't a mythical animal". This seems a rather flimsy conclusion to make, and we need to cite sources that make this conclusion if we want to leave it in the article. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Arabic البدر / دلفبن

I can't find any sources mentioing the above in the context of Tahash, or that claim the words mean not only a certain colour of sea mammals, but that colour itself. The sentence

the basic meaning in antiquity simply appears to be "(color) of the sky," "(color) of the sea.," i.e. "marked" as "from heaven" or "from (the) deep", connoting hidden danger and dread of the unknown.

appears to be unsupported, and the following claim that...

This may be demonstrated from what is known of its etymology and origin within the Afroasiatic family of languages.

...may be true but is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. Our statements need to be verifiable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Addax

I'm afraid I can't find any source linking the addax to tahash. Can anyone else? --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the section because I can't establish its relevance to tahash. The following key part of the Addax section I had a particular problem with, in that I could find no evidence to support this assertion:

Historically, addax [אדש] skins have been made into tent curtains, covers, fine leather goods, and sandals; addax-skin leather would have been among the normal choice materials that were used to fashion the outer covering of a great desert chieftain's moveable pavilion or dwelling.

...and then this part appears to be pure conjecture. The only verifiable fact I found was that the Tuaregs used addax skin to make shields.

Addax-skin can be processed into a very luxuriant soft leather. Indigo-dyed addax leather is strikingly beautiful. (The Tuaregs, for example, are fond of indigo dye. Clothes dyed with indigo signified wealth.) "Soft-dressed addax" skins (t-ch-s addax skins) can also be "blue-processed addax skins" (t-ch-s addax skins), and the addax is a large animal. Such skins would have made a very suitable, and [ קרן ] radiantly[24] beautiful,[25] outer covering for the Mishkan (the Tabernacle, the Dwelling of HaShem)

If we can find sources, then of course we can restore the relevant parts.--Pontificalibus (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise this means the Kosher animals section is now rather short, but I'll work on expanding it next with new data, or possibly resectioning (e.g. mythical vs real animals) --Pontificalibus (talk)

Read the referenced and cited sources

The fact that the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is the source of several statements that you claim have no source,

• the fact that the quotation from Josephus is his direct reference to the contributions made to the Mishkan and you claim it has nothing to do with the tahash skins,
• the fact that anyone who takes the trouble to verify that the Bestiaries have no entry for "Tahash" has at hand verification for the statement that no Bestiary of the Middle Ages has any mention of Tahash (that's why the Medieval Bestiary site was provided by link), yet you claim there is no source for such a statement (all you have to do is read their tables of contents),
• the fact that you claim the Tanakh is not a source,

—all of these facts and more that I could cite from resources provided, which were the sources of statements made and which I checked myself and know what they say, indicates clearly that without having checked the sources referenced and cited, you removed material they support, nevertheless stating in your summaries that they are "unreferenced" and "need citation"—statements that are not true.

Editors who do this are not verifying the sources cited, and are removing material without substantiated reasons for doing so, and are in fact giving false reasons in the summaries of edits (even if you believed your reasons are true, a check of the sources will show they are not). Checking and verifying source material is a prime policy of Wikipedia. You have not done this. No personal attack at all. This is a statement of fact which anyone else who cares to check the sources can verify. Policy was not followed. You have persuaded me to withdraw from a futile effort at providing encyclopedic material that can be verified and is verifiable. Do what you will. I completely withdraw. You will not hear from me again on this subject. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

As the mother of the above, I would like to tell you where to go, but it wouldn't be ladylike for a woman of my advanced age. I am using his computer. I have no ID of my own. You make me glad that I don't contribute to Wikipedia. Furthermore, you don't know how to spell. I have read your work. —I am a retired secretary to executive directors of governmental departments of the State I live in, with an Associate Degree in Secretarial Science.

Michael, As I wrote earlier, if there is a removal of information - challenge it on the talk page. If after discussion we are unable to come to a consensus, ask for other opinions.
Three additional comments:

1. Regarding the bestiaries, it sounds like you are sourcing your statement that "X does not appear in Y". I'm not sure how this works and might be worth an RfC regarding sourcing policy. My thought is that it is legit if you are saying that in a given book Y, X is missing. To say that in a given (theoretically unlimited) set of information Y, X is missing - that is difficult. How do you know that you have seen all the information? Your thoughts?
   
2. When sourcing a statement, the best way to do so is to write the sentence in the article and the source in the footnotes. For example rather than: "Josephus writes that Susan hit Jeremy<ref>Antiquities 2:38</ref>" try: "Susan hit Jeremy.<ref>Josephus, Antiquities 2:38</ref>"
3. Regarding sourcing from the bible. WP requires secondary sources. Bible verses are rarely legitimate sources because the are so given to interpretation. An example: In the article on Jewish views on capital punishment to write, "Jewish law mandates direct reciprocal justice. If Bob cuts off Sarah's nose, his nose is in return cut off.<ref>(Leviticus 24:19–21, Exodus 21:22–25, and Deuteronomy 19:16-21)</ref>"
   would clearly be wrong even though it is sourced to bible verses.

As was written above, it would seem to me sad if you walk away from this article because other editors are changing the hard work you put in. To me this has always been one of the wonderful things about WP. There are many tools available to help us reach consensus (including RFC, mediation, and so on) and I suggest we use them together. You may also want to read WP:OWN which phrases some of these ideas well and points to (if needed) the dispute resolution process pages. Oh and you Mom should know that I'm impressed by the research her son put in here. Joe407 (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, if you stick around to engage, I'll take the time to explain the reasoning behind my edits in more detail. We can dicuss things and come to an agreement. I appreciate that you pretty much single-handedly wrote the article yourself, for surely you are User:Hermitstudy, and this was the state of the article before you came along. That's a lot of work, and it wasn't with a light heart or casual hand I have removed content. My only thought is to make the article compliant with the policies of this encyclopedia - as it is, the nature of the article is reminiscent of a book or research paper, and an encyclopedia is a very different animal. Don't think all your hard work is being lost, for it's still there and can be used by you and by others not only for Wikipedia but for other projects with different requirements --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing pattern favoring only Talmud: WP:TEND

After the revert of the satellite image of the Sahara Desert intended to illustrate, in a way that written text cannot convey, how improbable is a migration of giraffe to the desert of Mount Sinai, and then being told that it added nothing—and then looking at the elimination edits of the past several days made by only two editors, I noticed a disturbing pattern of reversion and removal of all sections, statements and references that might appear to contradict the opinions of the Sages in the Talmud and their interpretation of the tahash. This would run counter to the policy of Wikipedia to include all points of view. Please consider the following text which I just retrieved from Wikipedia:Tendentious editing—

"There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number or validity of the sources cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint. (emphases mine)

Intentional or not, sources and statements in this article that do not appear to support the validity of the Talmudic point of view are the only ones that have been challenged, abbreviated, altered and removed. Given what I see here I don't expect to be sticking around for a reply. Take it for what it's worth. Hired gun--75.162.21.102 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning the reliability of sources, simply that statements made are not supported by sources. If you have specific concerns about removal of text, detail them here and we can discuss specific sources and statements.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fallacies in reasons for deletion of material, "length of article" possible pretext

Several fallacies are present in reasons given in summaries of edits about deletion and rearrangement of material, deletions and rearrangements which after examination merit reversion, especially on grounds of historical integrity. Maintaining historical integrity is my concern in this article. The particular fallacies that have strongly influenced the course of the current project of reconstruction are:

• Denying the antecedent
• Fallacy of the undistributed middle
• Moving the goalposts
• Appeal to tradition
• Presentism fallacy
• Anachronistic attribution

In common terms, the reasoning used to attempt to invalidate some of the cited sources of information is:

If x applied to tahash, then x would specifically use the word "tahash"

x does not use the word "tahash"

Therefore, x does not apply to tahash.

Stated in ordinary terms:

If the civil statutes regulating driving applied to me, the civil statutes regulating driving would use my name.

The civil statutes regulating driving do not use my name.

Therefore the civil statutes regulating driving do not apply to me.

An equivalent argument appearing in the article is:

Everything in the waters that has not fins and scales is an abomination to the Israelites.

Dugongs, sea cows, seals, dolphins, porpoises are not specifically named as abominations.

Therefore, dugongs, sea cows, seals, dolphins, porpoises are not abominations to the Israelites.

This is also called cavilling at the referent sources of authoritative information.

This also appears in the rejection of the sections on Physiologus, Etymologiae, and Cryptozoology:

Detailed descriptions in these works, of certain animals, and animals rumored to exist, very closely parallel the Talmudic descriptions of the tahash.

The word for tahash is not associated with these parallel descriptions in these works.

Therefore, these works are irrelevant to a discussion of the tahash, and the sections about them should be removed.

Related to this is the following:

The Torah written at the time of Moses and in the 10th to 4th centuries BCE specifies what is an abomination to the Israelites and not to be touched. Specifically: does not chew the cud, does not have cloven hooves; does not have fins, does not have scales.

The Talmud written and compiled in the 2nd to 6th centuries CE interprets these commandments as not applying to the tahash wherever the tahash is specified as an animal that has the marks of an abomination.

Therefore, the Torah was not including the tahash as an abomination not to be touched, and to say that according to the Torah the tahash could not have been the badger, dugong, sea cow, seal, dolphin or porpoise is to make an unfounded assertion.

If the Bible forbids something without qualification

and the Talmud allows it

the person who says it is forbidden is only giving a personal interpretation. (WP:OR)

Stated in other terms: What is permitted by the Talmud CE was permitted by the Torah BCE.

And finally, this reasoning:

The word "tahash" is defined by the authority of the Talmud as an animal.

The article presented the word "tahash" as including its definition as a color.

Therefore, the word "tahash" cannot mean a color, and the article cannot include that meaning.

The reasoning that the authority of the Talmud and Tosefta must be applied to historical realities prior to them to determine what is relevant or not relevant to this article is a fallacy that excludes other documented viewpoints that appear throughout history, and excludes use of relevant sources of linguistic and historical information that support these points of view but do not support Talmudic reasoning and Jewish cultural interpretation. Some of these relevant authoritative and verifiable sources of historical and linguistic information with established reputations have been rejected as "not verifiable". The policy of Wikipedia does not support such a single point of view as appropriate to its purpose as an encyclopedia of knowledge.

In accordance with this policy I will delete or revert material in this article which is clearly fallacious or appears intended to support only the Talmudic rabbinical interpretation or Jewish cultural point of view of the meaning of the word tahash. The Talmudic and Jewish cultural viewpoints I will defend, as a matter of historical fact, but not to the exclusion of others of historical record which do not correspond to them and do not appear to support them. Given the multiple meanings that have been applied to "tahash", one single conclusion cannot be maintained throughout this article as being the overriding and definitive meaning of the word. That is not this article's purpose. An exclusively Jewish definition of "tahash" would merit a separate article, or have merit as a specific defining segment within a Jewish article, and I heartily recommend that one be written. Pontificalibus and Joe407 appear fully qualified to write a treatment like that.

When this "disturbing pattern" was pointed out, above, I applied for WP:RFPP stating as the reason, Tendentious editing with the apparent goal of removing material which does not support the Talmudic point of view alone. It did not take long for the editors to find merit in the request. They found "evidence of vandalism". It is this "vandalism" that I intend to revert. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the length of this article before the project of reconstruction began, this appears to be a pretext: —there are other articles in Wikipedia that are just as long or longer: Judaism, Authorized King James Version, Islam, History of Science. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

All edits I have made deleting content have been to remove claims that are not verifiable. If you consequently perceive any bias in the article, please do correct it, but do ensure that all claims are verifiable, in particular note these points from the verifiability policy:

1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article. Wikipedia must never be a first publisher.
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position—called original synthesis, or original SYN—is prohibited by the NOR policy.
3. Articles should be based largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are normally welcome, there are dangers in relying on them. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.

If you believe any content I removed is verifiable, copy and paste the specific sentences here so we can discuss sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

addendum —reversion of linguistic material and cited sources without prior WP:RfC evaluation by reputable Semitic scholars and a reasonable interval of time to allow for their response to be recorded here will be perceived as unjustified reversion and as vandalism and will be so noted. All previous reversions and deletions of linguistic material in this article I will revert and restore, one by one, over the next several days to allow them to be reputably evaluated by published reputable Semitic linguistic scholars. If anyone here disagrees with the linguistic material appearing in this article, then the proper procedure is WP:RfC from the Semitic scholars, and to patiently await a response from them, not from me. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Before engaging in an edit war you need to engage with other editors here. I have previously asked you to discuss the lack of sources for the specific content I removed, but you haven't yet done so. With regards to "published reputable Semitic linguistic scholars" commenting on the article, it would be great to have some experts drop by, but Wikipedia is often able to work without experts, becasue all claims made must be cited in reliable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The word "because" is spelled b-e-c-a-u-s-e, not b-e-c-a-s-u-e. (Look up the spelling of "Josephus", too.) It appears you lack a basic education. When I came to the article with a very critical eye because I had never heard of some of these things before, I consulted the Wikipedia policies on verifiability. None of the sources cited lacked it, and they still don't. So I left them as they were. I have engaged with other editors. But I see you are threatening an edit war. That was predictable. Notice that I had not done any reverts at all. I'm sure this attitude will be of interest to the administrators, now that it's on record. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 13:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I am happy to discuss with you any removal of content I have made, if you would detail it on this page. You could also respond to some of the topics above I have started concerning lack of sources. --Pontificalibus (talk)

For goodness sakes, Michael, can we please have a modicum of professionalism? The article patently fails WP:V because few statements are sourced; this is the critical matter, and allusions to various abstract logical fallacies greatly distracts from correcting this problem.

Also, you seem to be misunderstanding the dispute resolution process- not only is an RfC not necessary, but if one took place, it would not be restricted to Semitic scholars, and it would not be binding. Finally, you are the one threatening an edit war Michael, not Pontificalibus. I am gravely concerned by the direction your comments are taking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The "bullet" statements about "tahash"—verifiability and Wikilawyering

Regarding: The "bullet" statements about the tahash: they are totally familiar to anyone who has read the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud and Tosefta, Rashi's commentaries on them, and the Legends Of The Jews, and that makes them verifiable. No problem. "Go and read it" (Hillel). —hired gun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.21.102 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Michael, regarding those bullet points - they may be totally familiar to someone who has read those works, but this encyclopedia article is intended for a general audience, most of whom will not have read those works. This is why they need to be attributed to a specific source e.g. book, chapter and verse or page. See WP:CITE for instructions on how to cite sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:V

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether the readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

"In practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question."

According to WP:V Reliable sources and original research

"1. All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source. That means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article."

The "bullet point" statements about the tahash are made in the context of the Talmud as source. None of the statements is false. The Soncino Babylonian Talmud is linked. The Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud and Tosefta and Rashi's commentaries are reliable published sources. "Legends Of The Jews" is cited and linked. These can all be checked. This fulfills the ordinary requirement of Wikipedia's verification policy: the source exists, is reliable and published, and supports the material. In the context of Jewish tradition, every statement in the list about the tahash is traditional. They have not been challenged until now.

In hind-sight, the original contributor of the compiled statements about the tahash, within the context of discussion of the Talmudic disputes about it, could have explicitly attributed them to their source, but appears to have relied on an "implicit" attribution by context. The challenge demanding "book, chapter and verse or page" appears as a more exacting demand, one not normally required by Wikipedia policy for non-controversial statements (and none of the "bullet points" about the tahash is controversial). This, by itself, asserts that there is no support in the source, and shows a failure to check the source to verify it. If the source had been checked the challenge (in good faith) wouldn't have been made. I have found statements that "there is no support in the source" when the source does support it. Supporting external links and articles listed at the end have been removed which supported material reverted as "unsupported", "original research", and "irrelevant". (A reader would have to access a previous version to verify existence of supporting sources.)

This kind of challenge and a lack of substantial rationale for other reverting edits appears WP:WL: "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles"—"Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"—"...(and) will repeatedly refer to policy rather than providing rationale for their edits."

However, a "lack of (substantial) rationale", wherever it appears, can always be demonstrated. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

None of the statements are supported by citations. In order for a claim to be controversial, it need only be challenged by another editor, and thus require a citation.

Take for example

*the tahash devours the wild grasses before it, and tramples them down (therefore it is clean)

This needs an explicit source. If there a source was given I would be able to check it but none is given. Is it in the Talmud or a commentary of the Talmud? Who makes the deduction "therefore it is clean"? Without an explicit source, it can't be verified. You can't use "implicit attribution by context". --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of section on Bestiaries—2 Dec. 2010

The section on Bestiaries of the Middle Ages was reverted on 2 December 2010 with the summary explanation that it says,

"..."tahash is not included [in any bestiary of the middle ages]"—a bold statement that needs a source."

The section on Bestiaries in the article "Tahash" cites the on-line site

"The Medieval Bestiary: Animals in the Middle Ages".

That site is a thoroughly documented compilation of all the entries from all known and extant bestiaries from antiquity through the late Renaissance.

The objection is raised, "How do we know...?" (that he looked at every copy.)

We don't have to know. Show that at least one published bestiary of the middle ages has an entry for "tahash". That would establish beyond any doubt that both the statement in the article and omission of any mention of "tahash" in the cited on-line site "Medieval Bestiary" are wrong. But until that is done, the section that was reverted and removed remains accurate and factual: there was no good reason to revert the section on medieval bestiaries. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

We mustn't leave it to readers who are sceptial of our claims to have to attempt to disprove them. We need to support our statements positively with sources.

Also, even if Tahash is not included in any bestiary of the middle ages, we can't draw any conclusions from that in the article without citing a source that comes to those conclusions. The Tahash could have been a mystical animal but absent from the bestiaries for some other reason. This is an encyclopedia, it's not the place for ideas that haven't already been expressed elsewhere. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All that the section said was that no entry was included. The edit summary states that this is not verifiable because the contributor cannot prove that he looked at every bestiary. A reliable published source with its own verifiable sources was provided for the reader which verifies the statement. This fact positively supports the statement as required. The section does not state any conclusion drawn from this fact. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The given justification for including this section is in the footnote:

"This section is relevant because the Medieval bestiaries don't include the tahash or tachash as an animal. It doesn't even appear to be considered as an animal. This suggests that the word tachash for the compilers of these bestiaries didn't indicate any beast, either living, extinct, or legendary. This is important for an understanding of the etymology (history of meaning) of the word."

The source given is bestiary.ca. This site does not mention Tahash. We can't derive our own conclusions from this lack of coverage. To do so would be a synthesis and is not appropriate for an encyclopdia. Again, we need a third-party source claiming "Tahash is not mentioned in any medieval bestiary therefore it doesn't even appear to be considered as an animal. This suggests that the word tachash for the compilers of these bestiaries didn't indicate any beast, either living, extinct, or legendary." We can't make that therefore presumption ourselves. So without that source, the section is redundant --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of quote and section on Josephus—16:31, 2 December 2010

The reversion of both the quotation from Josephus and the section Josephus 1st century gives this challenge as edit summary:

"where is the reference showing that the blue-dyed sheep skins of Josephus have anything to do with orot tahashim"

The reference was given: Antiquities 3.102 (Whiston).

According to WP:V this reference is good enough.

The template for was not used. That would have invited discussion before reversion.

Reversion was made without afterward producing any discussion of rationale on this page. WP:BRD

A brief fifteen minute check of source produced the following information:

The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston, A. M., © 1987 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473, ISBN 0-913573-86-8,

APPENDIX

TEXTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PARALLEL TO JOSEPHUS' HISTORIES (p. 895)

Exodus............................................Antiquities

Chs. 25-27; 35-38...........................3.6.1 (3.102–107, pages 85-6)

Chs. 28-30; 40; & Lev. passim.......3.6.1–3.10.1ff (3.102–238, pages 85-95)

Unexpected: The [16:31, 2 December] reverted section with the block quotation from Josephus did not include the following additional statement by Josephus (it could have):

"There were also other curtains made of skins above these, which afforded covering and protection to those that were woven, both in hot weather and when it rained; and great was the surprise of those who viewed these curtains at a distance, for they seemed not at all to differ from the color of the sky" —Antiquities 3.6.4 (3.132, page 87, source cited above–boldface emphasis mine)

These curtains made of skins, which seemed not at all to differ from the color of the (blue) sky, being viewed from a distance, were the outer covering of the tabernacle:

"Over the tent itself you shall make a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and above that, a covering of tahash skins [ 'orot tahashim ] " Exodus 26:14 NAB, with added boldface transliterated Hebrew term for "tahash skins".

Briefly:

• The reference was given according to the ordinary requirement of Wikipedia. The edit summary "where's the reference..." was already answered. Additional citation not absolutely needed—but provided here.
• The referenced (reputable, published) secondary source The Works of JOSEPHUS states that the text of Antiquities is parallel to the text of the Tanakh (Old Testament). It is not original research. WP:OR
• The blue-dyed skins of Josephus are the parallel expression of the Hebrew 'orot tahashim:

Exodus 35:23 = Antiquities 3.102 "and sheepskins, some of them dyed of a blue color"

Exodus 36:19 = Antiquities 3.132 "they seemed not at all to differ from the color of the sky"

The blue-dyed sheep skins of Josephus have everything to do with 'orot tahashim.

A brief fifteen-minute check of the cited source showed that there was no good reason for the reversion of both the brief quote and the section on Josephus 1st century. Hired gun--75.162.21.102 (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found an online version of this text in which I found the following crucial line that I will now add in to the quote:

...for of these materials did Moses build the tabernacle...

Don't you agree that makes the quote seem directly relevant - I will also create a citation using the Citation template so that other readers can easily verify the source. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore all of the section yet as I'm not sure about the conclusions drawn from this quote:

Josephus understands 'orot tahashim as "skins of blue (indigo)." The "flower for the purple color" in the ancient world of his time is the flower of the Indigofera tinctoria. It is identical to the Dark Tyrian Purple used by rulers of nations.

We have "sheepskins, some of them dyed of a blue color", and "the flower for the purple color", and in the tabernacle we have many "curtains" and "veils". How do we know which of these "ingredients" relate to the Tahash skins. One could conclude the sheepskins could be the skins making up the outer layer the colour of the sky, and that "the flower for the purple color" was used for some other fabric. --Pontificalibus (talk)

Conclusions were not drawn from this quote. That would be original research. Josephus understands 'orot tahashim as skins of blue according to Antiquities 3.6.4 (3.132, page 87) as shown above. The quote from this source establishes this fact (Josephus understands) without any original research.

This clarifying quote was not included in the (edited) revision of the section when it was restored to the article. It merits addition as crucial to understanding as much as the crucial line (above) merited addition.

The statement in the original reverted segment Josephus 1st century about the flower for the purple color—but not returned to the article in the revised edit—the statement does not conclude that 'orot tahashim was dyed with indigofera tinctoria. It refers only to the flower for the purple color. The flower for the purple color is the indigofera tinctoria:

"The Talmud also mentions a counterfeit dye from a plant called Kela Ilan, known as Indigofera tinctoria, the ubiquitous source of blue dye in the ancient world."

Secondary sources for this verifiable statement of fact include the linked site Ancient Dyes, also the Talmud, and Baba Metzia; and there are others listed in the references and external sources in the Wikipedia article Tekhelet. These all state that the indigofera tinctoria was the dye plant used for blue and purple in the middle east and in the Roman Empire at the time of Moses and of Josephus. It is identical to the Dark Tyrian purple used by rulers of nations.

• There was no good reason to omit inclusion of the verifiable fact that Josephus understood 'orot tahashim to be skins dyed blue.
• There was no good reason to omit inclusion of the verifiable fact that the flower for the purple color was indigofera tinctoria.

Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of list of Articles and External links—13:39, 2 December 2010

The list of articles and external links originally provided at the end of this article was reverted on 2 December with the edit summary

"these are all great links but none are tahash specific"

A check for verification produced the following information:

• The external linked sources listed at the end of the article (except "Word Play") all speak specifically of the outer covering of the Mishkan/Tabernacle.
• The Torah/Pentateuch of the Tanakh/Old Testament specifically says: "Over the tent itself you shall make a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and above that, a covering of tahash skins." Exodus 26:14 (compare versions)
• According to the Hebrew (Masoretic) text of Shemot-Exodus Chapter 26 this outer covering is specifically ('orot tahashim) וערות תחשים. —tahash

Briefly—

• The outer covering of the Tabernacle is specifically skins of tahashim—tahash.
• Sources discussing the outer covering of the Tabernacle are ipso facto discussing skins of tahashim—tahash.
• The reputable, published articles and sources externally linked at the end of the article (WP:ELYES) include mention of and discussions of the Tabernacle and the outer covering of the Tabernacle (a covering which is specifically skins of tahashim—tahash).

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding on the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail..."

• The list of external reputable, published sources and articles includes texts mentioning various proposed specific translations of the Tabernacle's outer covering of skins of "tahashim"—tahash ("badger", "dugong", etc.").
• This list of articles and external links related to tahash was removed with the summary: "none are tahash specific".

What does this look like to you?

With this, I believe I have established beyond a reasonable doubt, and with facts alone, the kind of edits Pontificalibus and Joe407 have made to this article.

Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of comment on color of Mishkan with reference to Addax—12:30, 12 December 2010

The comment on the color of the outer covering of the Mishkan as related to dyed antelope skin was reverted on 12 December 2010 with edit summary

"no evidence for Addax (see talk page) so this is no longer appropriate, including speculative footnote"

The section on Addax had already been removed: "addax unrelated to tahash". (see this talk page Tahash: "Addax".)

A check for verification produced the following information:

Multiple Bible translations render tahashim as "antelope". (Other Bible Translations)

The addax is an antelope.

The legendary antelope is

"a fabulous animal haunting the banks of the Euphrates, very savage, hard to catch" (Antelope).

The Google Translate translation of Addax from English to Hebrew is דושון.

The Hebrew word דושון is transliterated "diy-shon".

The Hebrew word "dishon" means "antelope".

The Exodus from Egypt and the making of the Mishkan/Tabernacle took place before 10th century BCE.

The Hebrew letter ו (vav/waw) was not used as mater lectionis before 10th century BCE.

The Hebrew word for "antelope" before 10th century BCE is דשן.

The Google Translate translation of Addax English to Hebrew (rendered without matres lectionis waw [ ו ]) is דשן.

The Hebrew word אדש is transliterated 'adash.

The Hebrew letter א (alef) was not used as mater lectionis before 10th century BCE.

The Hebrew word 'adash before 10th century BCE is דש.

The Hebrew word 'adash is a phonetic (audio) transliteration of addax.

The verifiable article section Other Bible Translations lists several versions which translate תחשים as "antelope": this verifies the relevancy of "antelope" and "tahash".

The verifiable link provided to Kolel's Parashah Study #1999 quoted the Talmud quotation of a rabbi relating "tahash" to "hish" (swift) and "antelope".

The section on Sacred Word Play: Paranomasia showing the phonetic (audio) and orthographic relationship of דשן to דש and תחש was removed.

The section on Addax (antelope) was removed.

The section on Semitic Root "h-sh" was removed.

Verifying sources for the facts listed above are:

• Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar
• Strong's Concordance Hebrew Lexicon
• BDB Lexicon: 'adash, desheh, dishon
• "Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word Play: Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience" by David Steinberg

Briefly—

• The section on Semitic root "חש/הש" was removed.
• The section on Sacred Word Play: Paranomasia was removed.
• The section on Addax was removed.
• Then—after these verifiable sources for the link Addax/Antelope/Tahash were entirely removed from the article—the reverting editor states:"no evidence for Addax (see talk page) so this is no longer appropriate".

What does this look like to you?

Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains we have found no sources specifically connecting the Addax with Tahash. Unless we do, we can't mention it in the article. You might wish to familiarise yourself with WP:SYNTHESIS --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The addax is an antelope. The antelope is specifically connected with the tahash by the secondary sources cited ("found"). Bible translators specifically equate "antelope" with "tahashim". "The antelope" includes "the addax". Its common native range was the area of the Levant. The Levant includes northern Egypt, the Sinai, and Israel.

The response submitted just above this one ("we have found no sources") is valid only if the addax is not an antelope. There are 91 species of antelope in about 30 genera. It is not necessary to name each of them for each of them to be included and identified as an antelope. It is not necessary to name any one of them for any one of them to be a candidate for being the antelope tahash. The addax, however, is the only antelope of the region with a long history (2500 years) of domestic cultivation as cattle extending back to Egypt before the time of Moses. It is entirely appropriate to mention it by name. It is entirely appropriate to simply call it an antelope. Reputable secondary sources say the tahash is an antelope. This is not WP:synthesis. It is not WP:original research.

This reminds me of the fallacy mentioned above: denial of the antecedent. But an "argument" of that kind is not my style. I would never use it, since it does not target specific contradictions this way:

• "This was said, but it does not fit the facts, which are these—".

Any generic argument less specific than that never makes its point. Hired gun --75.162.21.102 (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So you don't know of any source linking the Addax to the Tahash, as opposed to antelopes in general? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of list of tahash statements—17:06, 18 December 2010

I have been looking for a good long while for this "block quote", because all of the statements listed in it were familiar. The problem with it was that its layout was almost exactly like a block quote. But it isn't. Every one of the statements in it can be found scattered throughout the Talmud and Rashi's commentary and other Rabbinical sources, and ironically the core of each of them is expressed separately throughout the texts of two linked external sites expressing the possible validity of skins of non-kosher animals being used for the covering of the Mishkan. But that doesn't validate the list as it was put on the page. The list with its identical introductory and concluding phrase had a kind of seductive "mystical" quality—like a poem—which I think helped keep it on the page for a long time. But "this is not the place to publish unpublished poetry"—like the one that was "borrowed" from me (that was a surprise). I've seen this kind of "mystical" thing before in modern New Age literature.

It's familiar enough to suggest that it has been heard or read somewhere before. You check the normal sources, but you can't find them. You might conclude that it's from a source of "hidden wisdom", and you start to get obsessed with finding it. You might even conclude that it has awakened forgotten inner knowledge that you actually already possess, making you a very special person with an intuitive understanding of the nature of reality.

Take away the "hint of mystery" statement that framed the beginning and end of the list, and the suggestion of hidden wisdom literature isn't there anymore. It's just a list. And it was put together in a kind of sequence. It's a fact that almost everything in life can have a deeper meaning. Hasidism is a prime example. So what's the real problem with this kind of thing that was removed? Well, like Pontificalibus said, it's not straightforward like an encyclopedic summary should be. What seems more to the point is the suggestion that there is a deep hidden meaning apart from the fundamental everyday factual reality of what the skins of tahashim were for. This smacks of esotericism and elitist snobbery. It's the exact opposite of what is written in the Torah:

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deuteronomy 29:29 RSV

I think the reverted list is a good example of a kind of WP:SYN intended to persuade the reader to adopt a new point of view. That's why this analysis. The list was pleasant reading when I first came across it in the article. That was its subtlety. But quite honestly I also didn't notice it was gone for a while, either. I think it was a distraction. I must have read the section over about twelve times before I noticed the list was gone. Once I realized that it wasn't there, I reread the section. Frankly—nothing's missing now that it's gone, and I won't miss it. I don't think anyone else will miss it either! --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Translations moved

Joe—I was thinking about doing the same thing, to give the reader a view of what translators have done through the centuries as an introduction to the historical "timeline". You just beat me to it. Readers who don't have a lot of time to read the whole article will get a reasonable summary of the topic and an overview of what various experts have thought about the identity of the tahash. I am convinced that a clearer picture of the process is made by having the versions in that single list in chronological order as it is now. It relates to how changes in scholarship come and go. Perhaps also at the end of each "period" the abbreviated titles of the translations of that particular time could be re-listed: end of 19th century the DV, KJV—end of 5th century the ANT., Targums, Vulg.—end of 1st century BCE the LXX —(etc.)

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of modified form of "Articles and External Links"—14:28, 22 December 2010

It is contradictory to revert the entire list of sources, Articles and External Links,

"due to lack of compliance with WP:EL, some links were commercial "

and at the same time retain links to

Chanan Morrison. Gold from the Land of Israel: A New Light on the Weekly Torah Portion from the Writings of Rabbi Isaac HaKohen Kook ISBN 978-9657108925

and

Nosson (Natan) Slifkin. Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture, Talmud and Midrash ISBN 978-1933143187

and

Methods in the Mediterranean: historical and archaeological views on texts & archaeology, by David B. Small ISBN 978-9004095816

each of them being links which are commercial sites.

The non-commercial links in the listing that was reverted could have been retained without violation of WP:EL. But the entire list was removed. If Morrison and Slifkin and Small merit retention, then the list that was reverted merits retention. The statement in the reverting edit summary about removing a "good faith" edit does not remove the appearance of one-sided vandalism, and of a continuing edit-war against good faith edits. Morrison and Slifkin and Small did not merit reversion, so the Articles and External Links list was removed without good cause.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning Michael! The edit was removed for a number of reasons. Before I get into it I would ask that if something was removed, to simply restore the entire section verbatim a month later is rude at best.

Next I would mention that WP:EL prohibits links to external, commercial sites such as Amazon.com and others. This does not prohibit the WP ISBN template which, while it leads the reader to a number of places that they can pay money for the item in question, is not a shill for a given site.

As to the content removed there are a number of problems.

• Wikipedia article: Kosher animals - Pointing to other WP articles should be done under a heading of "See also". Specificaly, I disagree that the Tachash article needs to have a see also to "Kosher animals". Perhaphs to "Cryptozooligy" or "Taxonomy". Maybe "Biblical animals".

The following links direct the reader to wonderful information but it is general info:

• The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary
• Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Translated into English with notes, glossary and indices, under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, B.A., Ph.D., D.Litt. © 1938, 1948, 1952, 1961.
• Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word Play: Reconstructing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience, David Steinberg
• OU Position Certifying Specific Animals and Birds

The following sites are nice information and if they have use as sources within the article then they should be used as such.

• Easton's Bible Dictionary (1823 - 1894): "Badger"
• The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914): "Tabernacle"
• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915): "Badger"
• Encyclopedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 19:SOM-TN © 2007, Keter Publishing House, Ltd. page 435: "TAHASH"

The following is a commercial link. Perhaps a "See also" section could have Natan Slifkin. If you feel a "Further reading" section should include his book, please use the WP ISBN template as I explained above.

• The Camel, the Hare, & the Hyrax, Rabbi Natan Slifkin

Joe407 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What you just said is perfectly reasonable, so you go ahead with the proposed changes: "See also", "Further reading", "General information" and ISBN template. I see nothing wrong with any of that, so we have consensus.

• Verbatim restoration of reverted material is consistent with WP:BRD and apparent WP:VANDAL, and was not intended to be rude or any kind of in your face confrontation. The modified list was not verbatim, it was a response to inline template request for "example" of scholarly discussions.
• WP:Link rot says that the one who causes dead links (creation of empty "see..." references by removal of the referenced section/s) is responsible for cleaning them up. The length of the article made the internal links to parts of it convenient for the reader, and now some of them have been made into useless annoyances producing no results (appearing like one form of WP:VANDTYPES: Blanking, illegitimate), which makes the encyclopedia look bad. You have some work to do.
• WP:EL states:

"Some acceptible links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic."

—You admitted that some of what was reverted contained further research that is accurate and on-topic.

I'll meanwhile go ahead and partly resequence the list of Biblical Translations, on the basis of your own suggestion to group them by how they render the translation of the word תחשים, and still keep the current basic historical order 21st century back to BCE 3rd century.

I'll access the Bibref site for on-line accessible Tanakh versions that use tachash, tachashim, including those that have no English text (Masoretic). The article would show the most recent works using "tahash/tachash skins" and "blue skins" for 'orot tehasim without establishing any kind of conclusion that they are the best or most accurate translations. (Could include nb-footnote pointing out, "The fact that these are the most recent translations should not be taken as evidence or proof that these are the best or most accurate translations.")

I'll contact the WP:WikiProject Bible site asking members if there is any source for image/s of the Samaritan Torah text of Exodus 25:5 we might download, to establish for the reader one way or the other whether the yud/yodt is included in this earliest pre-Masoretic exemplar of the Hebrew text. (It wouldn't be OR but an illustration of statements in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar § 30 regarding "lack of matres lectionis before 10th century BCE.") An image of that would really be interesting! And if there is an on-line accessible text of the Samaritan Torah, that would be a useful link. If there is, and it can't be linked from the article, a notation in the article could be provided (a footnote, or a suggestion to the reader) that it can be found on-line.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of revised section Sacred Word Play and section Bestiaries—09:09-11, 20 December

These were reverted as Original Research. They are not. As seen above, a bare technicality is being used as cause for reversion of valid supported material. The reversion of section Sacred Word Play invited editors to look to discussion on talk page "if not sure why". I came to the talk page and found no discussion. I am not surprised by that.

--Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC) This is your final warning. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You have initiated this discussion, which is all my edit summary asked.

The deleted section begins with:

Sacred word play[21] is frequently found in the Bible,[22] and is phonetically evident relating THSM תחשם and HSM השם by connotation: Tahashim and Hashem. Anyone can hear it. Word play in oral cultures, primitive and ancient and modern, is a method of reinforcing meaning. It frequently plays an important part in the persuasive force of Biblical rhetoric. Compare the phonetic spelling (audio icon) of each of the following words most relevant here (also spelled with and without matres lectionis for graphic comparison):

You are claiming that because the words Tahashim and Hashem sound similar, then it is self-evident that this "sacred word play". It's not self-evident to me. Nowhere in this section is a source cited connecting Tahash with "sacred word play". The section reads like a personal reflection or essay, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You really do need to thoroughly read the policies relating to what type of content is appropriate.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the primary philological connections of—

• the "primitive root" דש (eliyah.com and searchgodsword.org ),
• the "primitive root" דש (eliyah.com and searchgodsword.org ),
• the "primitive root" חש (eliyah.com and searchgodsword.org ),
• the "primitive root" חשה (eliyah.com and searchgodsword.org ),
• the "primitive root" חש underlying חשם and השם (eliyah.com — and searchgodsword.org חשם and searchgodsword.org השם ) Hashem and Hashem,
• the "primitive root" תחו (eliyah.com and searchgodsword.org ),
• the word תחן from the "primitive root" 2583 חנה and —–
• — חש 2363, השם 2044, חשם 2828, חשם 2367

—which connect the words in the list according to the linked sources that make the connection. The linked sources are reputable, published lexicons stating "primitive root" and "from a primitive root" connecting them.

You are ignoring the visible orthographic representation of these words having similar, even identical spelling.

You are ignoring the phonetically similar sounds of these words which the linked audio sources also provide.

This combination of relevant philological, orthographic, phonetical elements is evidently the cause for the list, which shows the established philological relationship of these words to "tahash" as its "semantic field". Since it is the linked reputable, published sources that make the connections between these related words, the list is not Original Research by a contributor. Since it is the linked reputable, published sources that establish the connections between these related words, the list is not a Synthesis.

If the connection of the sound of the words is not self-evident to you personally, that alone does not invalidate the linked sources cited which represent the results of professional philological research. The claim that it is not self-evident to you as cause for reversion of the information sounds like a violation of WP:NPOV.

No documentation from reputable, published sources has been provided to support rejection of this list, no documentation from reputable, published sources has been provided to support any argument that the philological relationships and links the sources make is false, no documentation from reputable, published sources has been provided to show that the linked sources are false or unreliable, no documentation from reputable, published sources has been provided to refute the relevancy of the list to the subject.

"Reads like an essay—." Two statements were derived from the Wikipedia article Word play:

Word play in oral cultures, primitive and ancient and modern, is a method of reinforcing meaning. It frequently plays a part in the persuasive force of Biblical rhetoric.

No one has disputed those statements in that article as reading like an essay and therefore as not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia encourages article writers to summarize or introduce material in their own words. It can easily be rewritten to sound less like an essay and more like straight statement of fact about the information from the sources, without changing any meaning or resulting in loss of content. Any editor objecting to the style could have done it. Style alone is not good enough cause to remove verifiable material from an article.

The response by Pontificalibus immediately above offered no discussion of the reversion of the section on Bestiaries of the middle ages. An earlier attempt to justify its reversion appears above on this page.

Bestiaries are encyclopedias of information about all known animals. That is/was their purpose. It is interesting and relevant that published bestiaries ancient and medieval do not have a listing for "tahash" during the very period when the writers of the Talmud and later Jewish commentaries discussed and debated the subject and proposed various animals kosher and non-kosher as the identitiy of the tahash. The section on "Bestiaries" does not draw any conclusion from this fact. The linked site Medieval Bestiary: Animals of the Middle Ages does not include any listing "tahash" in any bestiary known and extant. But the descriptions of several animals listed in several of the medieval bestiaries are similar to descriptions of the tahash. Removing the section "Bestiaries" as "irrelevant" because it states that there is no entry for "tahash" in any of the known and extant sources removes information relevant to the subject because of the striking similarity of the Rabbinical description of the tahash to the description of many of the animals described in the medieval bestiaries. (The reader is certainly free to conclude that the tahash is being described!) This was already discussed above.

No substantial justification was given for reversion of the section "Sacred Word Play: Paranomasia".

No substantial justification was given for reversion of the section "Medieval Bestiaries".

Pontificalibus and Joe407 received many warnings, detailed on this talk page, about reversions that look like vandalism because of the reasons given for reversion. WP:Vandal / WP:Tendentious editing / WP:Wikilawyering / WP:AIN. A final warning was given. The same kind of reversion has continued. This will be taken to the Administrators. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that there are no sources supporting your conjecture of "sacred word play" involving Tahash. Whatever argument you have developed above or in the article is entirely irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of orginal thought. All references to "sacred word play" need to be removed unless sources explicitly linking it with Tahash are provided. It is not sufficient to make your own inferences from your own observations such as the similiarty between words. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Importance of

At the end of the article is a small paragraph about "the importance of tahash". I'd like to remove as it seems a fitting close for an essay but not an encyclopedia article. Joe407 (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Joe—The same thing has crossed my mind. It's like the poetry and the "poetically" worded parts that don't sound like an encyclopedia. I liked the last picture, though—but I can't think of a reason to retain it, even though it "suggests" the dark tahash cover over the red rams' skins. Proves I was influenced by the earlier slanted wording in the article as a whole. Subtle. The "Summary" section is appropriate close. We have consensus. Hoo-RAh! --75.162.21.102 (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of entire section Historical linguistics and Grammatical-Historical Exegesis—15:30, 24 December 2010

The entire section was removed as "entirely incorrect". This isn't true. The only apparent issue being controverted by Pontificalibus as "incorrect" is the word "addax". This alone does not invalidate the entire section. A good faith edit of the section by simply substituting the word "antelope", which the sources support as legitimate translation of תחש, would have been simple. He was either unable or unwilling to do that. So I did it for him. The entire "blanking" of this whole subsection under the Summary heading is entirely disproportionate, and is not justified according to the explanation he gives in the edit summary—it appears instead to be WP:VANDTYPES: Blanking, illegitimate.

Accordingly, I have undone the reverting edit which "blanked" the entire section, and have substituted "antelope" for "addax" and also added the sources supporting "antelope" and "clean" beast. Even the conclusion of the Rabbinical Sages in the Talmud: Shabbat 28a,b supports a "clean" beast as the tahash.

FACTS: The addax is an antelope, and is native to the Levant. Other antelopes are lesser candidates for being tahash, primarily due to the fact that they have not been domesticated as cattle, they did not normally range the desert regions of the Levant, and their skins would not have been as readily available as donations by the people: "every man with whom was found tahash skins" Ex 35:23. It is not difficult to substitute "antelope" for "addax" since the addax is an antelope and Strong's Hebrew Lexicon #8476 says tahash is "probably a species of antelope."

All antelopes are kosher animals. Looking over the reverting edits by Pontificalibus shows an apparent rejection of the possibility that the tahash is, or was, kosher, which would violate WP:NPOV. He has provided links and sources that strongly support only the opposite opinion, that the tahash was non-kosher (unclean, abominable) by intent or design. He has not provided any source that balances this "unclean" opinion with sources supporting the "clean" opinion. He has consistently reverted and contested sources that support and verify the opinion that the tahash was "clean". He claims that the reverted material is solely my own opinion, when in fact it is not, but is from the cited sources without WP:synthesis. This looks very much like WP:VANDALISM and WP:DISRUPT. He has been warned. He has continued to revert without adequate justification. He also put a warning on my talk page to stop "disruptive editing", saying that if I did not stop "disruptive editing" I would be blocked from editing. He should have put it here. The only thing I appear to be disrupting is an apparent attempt by Pontificalibus to make the possibility of a kosher "clean" tahash appear highly unlikely in the eyes of the reader. It is fortunate that Wikipedia is not the only source of information to the public.

It is not disruptive to provide verifiable and supportive sources for statements made in the article or to demonstrate with facts from them that they are verifiable support; it is not disruptive to undo reverting edits which appear to be vandalism and hostile toward including all major contrasting opinions according to NPOV, in the article; it is not disruptive to restore and revise or rewrite—it is disruptive to "blank" whole sections of an article for insufficient, minor, or trivial reasons, or for reasons that do not apply to the section as a whole, which is what Pontificalibus has done here. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming Addax from antelope without any suporting sources is an excellent example of the kind of synthesis you have been repeatedly told is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there are sources suggesting an antelope then fine, put "antelope", but to then make your own assumptions ("oh, it's most likely the Addax because that's an antelope found in that region") and then present that as a fact is misleading the reader. There are plenty of other types of antelope and no cited sources suggesting the addax in particular is indicated in this instance. I started a discussion about Addax on the talk page around a month ago but got no response, which is why I removed the section. If you try and engage with the issues I am raising rather than accusing me of promoting some hidden agenda of the Tahasah being Kosher we might actually get somewhere.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of promoting some hidden agenda of the Tahash being Kosher. You would know that, if you had read what I wrote. (And you really do need to check your spelling.) Mashalim–Proverbs 18:2 --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 12:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-kosher then, whatever - it would help if you addressed the issues with the article rather than attacking other editor's motives or typography. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You have just said that nothing I wrote, above, at any time addressed the issues you raised. TROLL --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How about addressing my comment about the Sacred Word Play section above?--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Research on tahash skins

A banner was posted above the article Tahash requesting attention by an "expert" on the subject. A talk page proposal requesting comments from Semitic scholars was dismissed by one editor as not necessary to Wikipedia, and there has been a persistent rejection of cited verifiable sources. Efforts to produce NPOV have been rejected. A disinterested point of view would be welcome. Michael Paul Heart (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)