Talk:Tachash/Archive 3

Soncino Babylonian Talmud not available
A new development I just discovered a few minutes ago: the link to Soncino Babylonian Talmud for reader confirmation of text about the tahash is now "broken". A similar occurance 28 December 2010 made the Rashi commentary on Ezekiel 16 in Judaica Press Complete Tanach equally unavailable, leaving blank tan-colored fields where Rashi's commentary once appeared for the reader to confirm at that Jewish source that Rashi's commentary on Yechezkel-Ezekiel 16:10 said the Jonathan Targum renders tahas as "glory" (colored) shoes instead of "badger" shoes. The Rashi commentary was made unavailable then; the link to Soncino Babylonian Talmud Shabbath 28a,b has now become unavailable. Within a very short time two supportive texts at Jewish sources have been removed from possibility of immediate access by any reader of this article. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:DEADLINK for policy. Joe407 (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's reassuring. "It could also return from the dead." (Keeping dead links)  Per guidelines of policy, I won't remove the citation of source, since the source itself is still available in libraries, and for sale at about $600.00 USD per set.  (I might later access the "archiving" resources.)  The Encyclopedia Judaica has also not been available online (from the start), and it remains a cited source in the article.  --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just this afternoon discovered the Soncino Babylonian Talmud site has been changed to a pdf, and was able to repair the URL to go to the same Moed: Shabbath tractate, but now it no longer goes directly to the particular relevant folio 28a,b for the source text cited in the article—so I added to the footnote citing the source the instruction to "scroll down to 28b".  --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The introduction
Given the guidelines for introductory text in the lead which state... "'The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article...It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article.'" ...is it appropriate for the lead to contain quotes such as: "a kind of leather or skin, and perhaps the animal yielding it (probably the dugong, compare Arabic ثذش dolphin, W.Gesenius Thesaurus Linguae Hebraeae [1500], A. Dillman–V.Ryssel [Exodus 25:5], G.E.Post [James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible BADGER]); Assyrian taɧsu [Friedrich Delitzsch, R. Baentach Erech.xvi], for which Friedrich Delitzsch [Prolegomena 77ff; Assyrisches Handworterbuch 705] conjectures the meaning sheep(skin); J.H.Bondi [Egyptiaca I.ff] compares Egyptian ths, leather; see summary of views M'Lean-Shipley [Encyclopedia of the Bible BADGERS SKINS]; absolute 'ח Numbers 4:6 +; plural תחשים Exodus 25:5 +; —leather used for (woman's) sandals Ezekiel 16:10; elsewhere for cover of tabernacle Numbers 4:15, 'עור ת verses 6.8.10.12.14, ערת (ה)תחשים Exodus 25:6 26:14 35:7.23 36:19 39:34 (all Priestly Code or Narrative.)'" and "כג. וכל איש אשר נמצא אתו תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני ושש ועזים וערת אילם מאדמים וערת תחשים הביאו" I am minded to simply remove these quotes, but am aware that our resident author will possibly take exception to this, so I'd like to establish consenus for this action here, or else prompt someone to attempt to rewrite the intro so that it complies with guidelines.--Pontificalibus (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

proposed re-write of intro lead according to policy
I decided to take the simplest approach as a way of getting started and maybe sparking a few ideas. The lead is divided by a new subheading "Variant readings of עורת תחשים" without rearranging the material. Then I added per policy a statement right at the beginning, at the end of the first paragraph, explaining the notability of the subject today. All of this is submitted as a tentative suggestion to begin the discussion. See if it can be improved. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * According to policy on inclusive intro lead, I think I've brought it to a finished state, with no deletion of relevant introductory information, so that it can completely stand alone.  Notability has been expressed in two sentences (important symbolic spiritual religious significance, and centuries-old debates continuing to this day), and the unexpected interpretation based on research about "beaded skins" mentioned in the main article has also now been briefly included.  The definitively important and famous but hard-to-follow Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon entry is now in the separated section "Variant readings" outside of the intro lead (and made more accessible to the reader than the actual text of the source itself, like a "translation" of the abbreviations).  And the dangling end "they brought them" has been more satisfactorily concluded by the reference to the finished tabernacle at the end of the intro. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Complete
As far as I can tell, the article Tahash is now complete and historically accurate. This concludes my involvement with this project which began last October. If others decide to vandalize it, or remove relevant, supported, reliable and verifiable information in order to advance their own Synthesis-by-Omission to support their own Original Research and Point of View (in violation of policy to "not promote a particular cause", thereby further compromising the integrity of Wikipedia) I will not attempt to correct them. My sole concern from the beginning has been to make the article as historically accurate as possible. The article as it now stands (04:13, 9 April 2011) is encyclopedic and historically accurate, and the reader will not be misled by a slanted presentation or by a lack of relevant visual information. It is now no longer my responsibility. The article is now complete. I have learned much, I thank the administrators for their support, and will turn my attention elsewhere. I wish them success in building a reliable encyclopedia. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Tahash" was developed by the community in seven key stages since the page was created 20:56, 9 February 2007: The list is provided here as an historical overview of its development for the convenience of anyone who would rather not scroll through the entire edit history of the article. The controvery it generated is amply documented on this Talk page and its archives. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 14:13, 11 July 2008
 * 2) 04:22, 2 April 2009
 * 3) 04:19, 22 December 2009
 * 4) 17:59, 25 March 2010
 * 5) 21:59, 17 October 2010
 * 6) 19:41, 28 November 2010
 * 7) 04:13, 9 April 2011


 * Michael Paul Heart, if you really think that this bloated bag of primary trivia is a good article, please nominate it for GA status. Please see Good article nominations. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Synthesis-by-omission is a figment of your imagination, Michael. This steaming pile of 75,000 bytes should probably be reduced to about 5000. And a lot of your sources suck.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the removed sources are ok. Natan Slifkin's books are pretty clearly reliable sources for this sort of thing. Those sections should probably be restored. The different translations by different sources seems to be reasonable to include as long as we include representatives rather than every example (e.g. we don't need every single one that says it is a dolphin, but having an example is good). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs
Many paragraphs in the article consist of only one sentence. It would be nice to try and have longer more coherent paragraphs that engage the reader, rather than single-line statements of fact.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wycliffe
Interesting subject. But the intro paragraph link to the KJV Bible texts as translation of tachash were obviously not supported by the body of the article. So I looked in the already provided biblegateway.com link for a version that used "tachash" or "tahash", but that site doesn't have one. I didn't want to completely obliterate the link that another editor provided and substitute another, so I chose the Wycliffe Bible translation there over the KJV, since most Christian Protestants trust the reputation of John Wycliffe. This was to make the intro express the main thrust of the article, in harmony with the cited conclusion of Hewlett that tachash does not mean "badger". I suppose a link to the actual Hebrew text would be useful to some students, but it might be "inaccessible" to too many people who just want information, and it wouldn't clarify anything. I enjoyed doing this one. A real change of pace. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 06:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Citations
A banner at the head of this article specified the need for more or additional verifiable citations. My curiosity, and former work as a proofreader, prompted me to go through the article and ask at several places, "is there some kind of citation that will back up this statement". I got many of them from simply reading the linked text of Natan Slifkin's book. Others I thought might be in earlier versions of the article (back when it read like a book or some professor's treatise!) Got a couple things from that. (One editor on this page suggested that maybe too much good info had been removed and that some of it ought probably to be put back. That was a cue to me to read the earlier versions.)  I added very little of my own, but I hope I made the article better. It got plenty of citations at that point to back up what it says. That's when I thought the banner could be removed. I thought at one point that I was through monkeying with it, but other parts of it apparently needing verification kept nagging me to follow through. I now really think I'm through with it (I hope). It was more work than I intended, and I stayed up late, but in a way it was rewarding. I'm not even going to look at it again for about a month, and then if it still "reads well" I'll nominate the article for Good Article status. If I see another "needs additional citations" banner, I think I'll decline, with due respect, at least for now. The freedom to participate or not is a real plus at Wikipedia. Thanks. In a way, it was fun. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclean animals excluded
LittleOldManRetired has done a nice job rescuing a lot of material here. Among the things restored that I am unsure about is the unclean animals section. Yes, the Torah has a concept of clean and unclean animals. I have not seen any source that says that an unclean animal skin may not be used to cover the mishkan. The gemara in Shabbat seems to debate the point but I am not familiar enough to call it. Thoughts? Joe407 (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a page? There is a general rule that says "lo hukhshar limlekhet shamayim ella ksherim utehorim befikha" (only that which is kosher and clean for your mouth may be used for the work of God - free translation). Debresser (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 28b has a debate. A braita seems to support but it's inclusion suggests that it is a debated point.  Also, is extracting this from a gemara debate legit in terms of WP sourcing rules? Joe407 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment at top. I just finished entering the observation by Rav Yosef b. Hiyya without being aware of this discussion here.  I'm delighted that I might have helped with the discussion without knowing it!  None of what I did today with the article was in response to anything you guys said here.  (By the way, in case you were wondering, I'm not Jewish, but nobody's perfect.)  I don't know the answer to Joe's question about the sourcing rules, but I think the Talmud might be a secondary or tertiary source, according with WP rules.  But that's way out of my league, at least for now.  I'm no expert. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I just remembered that a similar debate is gone over in Slifkin's book, near the end or middle of the Chapter linked in the footnote. He's pretty thorough about it, and he has footnotes to other debating sources too.  That too might be a source cited for the inconclusive discussion or debate about including the clean and unclean.  Or the fact that it's available right there to read might be good enough.  Just a thought! Have a g'nite. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The book of Leviticus is full of the prohibitions for using the unclean animals and poluted clean animals. Perhaps Lev. 5:2 or Lev. 7:24, Lev 11:8 e.t.c are the most notable ones. I mean, would anyone even consider the possibility that the top covering of the tent of the tabernacle was made out of swine skin ?!? No, I dont think so. Aleksig6 (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Aleksig6 - The prohibitions for the most part are regarding eating. Last I checked, Jewish law has no problem with pig skin.  Just don't eat it. Joe407 (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have a look tomorrow. Yes, the gemorre would be a valid source in Wikipedia. The thing is that I am in the middle of another gemorre. :) Debresser (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look. The discussion of this question starts on page 28a, and ends on page 28b. According to all opinions there the Tachash was a kosher (to be more precise, tahor) animal. And they indeed mentioned (a variation of) the general rule I mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled how the Jewish law forbidding even the touching of the corpses or bodies of unclean creatures allows working with the skin of a slaughtered animal that's unclean and then handling it when it's finished. I don't really know how anyone can get around that one.  Your thoughts people (WP community)? --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that we've gotten away from the purpose of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject"—so we should probably ask if removal of the section "Unclean animals excluded" would improve the article and "Reflect a neutral point of view". I don't think it would. However, if the article as it is now is not really balanced, I suppose an additional separate section could be included citing the views of those scholars who support the hypothesis that the tachash of Moses' day was an unclean animal and that the skins of such an unclean creature were used to cover the Mishkan. Natan Slifkin's book "Sacred Monsters" has a whole catalogue of sources favoring this opinion that could be listed in footnotes (with verifiable links, if they exist), just as was done in the intro paragraph about the description of the tachash in the Talmud, Midrash Tanchuma, Rashi's commentary and the Gemara. This might give the article a more "rounded" encyclopedic character expressing all points of view, which it already actually seems to have without it. So the other question would be to ask if it would be necessary to have such a separate section for the sake of encyclopedic balance—would it improve the article? I hope this is useful. Have a good weekend! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That warning (This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject) is relevant where discussion are likely to take place. If it happens once in a while, nobody will make a big deal of it. To answer your question, there is nothing unclean with the hide of an animal that is tahor and that has been slaughtered according to halakha. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your last statement (in answer to my question) would make a really good intro sentence in a separate section that you seem far more qualified than I am to write, summarizing the catalogue of sources cited by Slifkin, as I suggested above (those sources supporting the opinion that skins or leathers from an unclean animal could have been used as the covering of the Tabernacle). From what I've seen so far, it's a fairly recent opinion, not seriously proposed in writing before the time of the Talmud 2nd — 6th century at the earliest.  Am I mistaken here?  (It's for sure an older opinion than "beaded leather"). Do you think you could do it? --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Anybody have a picture of the tachash to add to this article? That would help people understand what we are talking about. Debresser (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I meant this as a joke, there are chumashim with drawings of all clean and unclean animals, and I am sure it will have some drawing for the tachash as well. If I happen to walk into one, I'll copy it. Debresser (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the earlier versions (Nov. 10, 2010 I believe) has one. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Nope, sorry about that.  It's actually in the earlier version of 04:13, 9 April 2011.  It has a whole gallery of pictures! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So please, go ahead. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did, and I'm not sure everyone will agree with the image (but I like it). I suppose a hide that's composed of cream-colored, tan, light-brown, dark brown, gray and black fur or hair is six-colored.  The image is actually Heinrich Harder's painting of an extinct elasmotherium, but it seems to have been included in the earlier version according to WP policy on use of images that do not have to be exactly an image of the subject being discussed but only need to "look like" it "even if they are not provably authentic images".  If you can find an image in one of the chumashim that looks more like the Talmudic description of the tachash than this one, I think that would be much better.  Thanks for your vote of confidence! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For good measure, I added a single picture image of a sample of hyacinth blue indigo dye that will likewise help people understand what color is being talked about. I would add that the article probably doesn't need more pictures (it got way out of hand in the earlier versions!)  I hope this is O.K.  --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Should an image of little green glass beads that look like Egyptian faience beads (also from another earlier version of this article) or the image of turquoise beads from the April 9 version be included in the separate section on Tachash as beaded leather? That may be too much, but what do you think?  --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)  To save everybody trouble, these are the two images I'm talking about: --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)




 * The text of the picture says that the Tachash had a hide with six colors, but the picture doesn't show just one color. Debresser (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my first reaction too, until I looked closer. That's why I said I suppose a hide that's composed of cream-colored 1, tan 2, light-brown 3, dark-brown 4, gray 5, and black 6 fur or hair is six-colored (you can see 'em as distinct colors if you enlarge the picture).  I would guess that the apparent size of the animal and its horn was a fair approximation of what kind of animal it was (according to Harder's interpretation) and that's probably why an earlier editor put it in.  I won't insist that this is a "verifiably authentic image" of the actual Talmudic tachash, only that it looks a lot like what the description conjures up for a reader (at least, I got excited when I saw it—it just looked so close to the "real thing").  When you asked if there was a picture, I thought of this one, in the earlier version I saw when I was looking for "good info that should be restored."  It was just a thought, after you semi-serously proposed looking for a picture.  That's why I still think if you can find a better image ("more authentic") in the chumashim, that would be much better.  Otherwise, I'm satisfied that the article was fairly good enough without a picture.  If everyone else agrees, go ahead and remove it; and even if they don't, go ahead and remove it, and we'll see if anyone seriously objects, O.K.?  (Why not?)


 * Meanwhile, what about the "hyacinth blue" image, and the images of the Beads? Should they be included—or is the article good enough without pictures?  Thoughts on this, people? --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way, just thought of it, in case it helps: Here's an image from the April 9 version Gallery, of the same kind of critter, but this one has a hide of only one color (or  two, if you count the color of its mane)—just for comparison with the varied colors of the hide of the other one. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)Elasmotherium.jpg

Tachash as blue antelope
I went back and looked at the picture of the blue antelope (Greater Kudu) in the earlier April 9 version of the article, and decided to put it in, not as an image of the Tachash, but, like the beads and the indigo dye sample, as an illustration of what the New Smith's Bible Dictionary entry for "badger" (KJV) as tachaitze says Hebrew Tachash looks like—bluish slaty-gray, from eastern Africa—and the animal in the picture is not only overall bluish slaty-gray, but it really has six colors too! This was exciting. So I would say, in my own humble opinion, that it very well could be a relative of the Tachash described in Rabbinical literature. Anyway, that's my excuse, folks. I hope it's O.K. (And once it was put in, I really liked the way it makes the article look.)  --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I also just now revised the link "Greater Kudu" in the picture caption so it takes the reader to the more relevant "Physical characteristics" section of that article which has a detailed description of the appearance of the animal's skin or hide. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclean Tachash skins
I am not convinced that the outer covering of the Mishkan was made of skins from an unclean creature. Joe407 (above) is convinced that such a thing is completely permissible as long as you don't eat its flesh, and Natan Slifkin in "Sacred Monsters" catalogues a number of scholars' opinions supporting this hypothesis. Debresser (above) says the animal could have been "tahor", and as such could have been used if slaughtered according to halakha. I think if a separate section expressing the "Unclean" hypothesis is placed in the article, it would probably fit best between "Tachash as blue antelope" and "Tachash as beaded skins" as a kind of rebuttal argument to the section "Unclean animals excluded". Based on my experiences in proof-reading texts, the structure of a section like this could be as follows: I would rather not be the writer of such a section, firstly because I know next to nothing about what constitutes a "tahor" creature, secondly because I have a strong conviction based on tradition that no way "Unclean Tachash skins" could be a valid hypothesis—as so well expressed above by Aleksig6 (above) about the possibility of Moses himself covering the Mishkan with skins from butchered swine (I don't think so!)—which I think would make an excellent qualifying statement at the end, in a form such as this:"'However, this hypothesis presents the possibility that Moses himself could have covered the Mishkan with an outer covering of skins from butchered hogs.' —end of section."
 * 1) An introduction, like the sentence mentioned earlier re Tahor class of animals: "There is nothing unclean with the hide of an animal that is tahor and that has been slaughtered according to halakha." Definition of Tahor follows, giving source of definition (such as a rabbinical text).  Then a brief statement that a number of writers since (century date) have proposed the hypothesis that skins from an unclean creature were used to cover the Mishkan.
 * 2) Names of scholars (dates given) supporting the hypothesis that skins from an unclean creature were used, each with a quoted opinion and footnote citation of the source. (Plenty of these are given in Slifkin's book, with citations.)
 * 3) And a neutral concluding sentence: "This supports the hypothesis that the Tachash skins that formed the outer covering of the Mishkan were those of an unclean animal, such as (list about eight of them), as shown in a number of Bible translations from (century and translation given) to the present day."

So the immediate questions to ask are:
 * "Is such an hypothesis OR?"
 * "Are the citations from reliable sources?"
 * "Are the citations from verifiable sources?"
 * "Is this hypothesis a minority view?"
 * "Does it lack credibility?"
 * "Is it notable enough for inclusion?"
 * "Would its inclusion in this article be disruptive?"
 * "Should this be treated in a separate article?"
 * "Is the article good enough without such a section?"

I would like to urge and encourage anyone who is actually convinced that the article would be more balanced by including a section on "Unclean Tachash skins" to go ahead and compose one. The numbered outline above might be useful.

But first I would also like to see what other people think about it. So far there have been no further statements from others supporting this view since it was mentioned. But even if there aren't any, those who support the "Unclean Tachash skins" hypothesis could still write it. (Why not?)

With all due respect. Have a great week! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 21:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Rescue, restoration and clean-up
Well, guys, I did what I could to retrieve relevant factual info from earlier versions of the article, check and find verifiable and reliable sources for some of it, to check and revise what needed to be improved, and then somewhat modify the layout (not much) and do some general style clean-up. (I believe the pictures worked out well in helping the reader grasp what the article is talking about—Thanks to Debresser for the original suggestion!) It needed more work than I thought it did at first glance. I've read and re-read it over and over again for errors, for possible improvements, and to guage the degree of its readability, grammar and syntax until I don't know what else I can do to improve it. Whether it now actually merits a Good Article Nomination or a Peer Review, I can't really tell. What do you think of the result? I welcome any evaluative comments made in Good Faith. (Please be nice, guys, I'm still new to Wikipedia.) Thanks! (And now—I'm going to take a break!) --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Unclean creatures proposed
Everyone has a right to change their mind, so I relented, and decided to go ahead and add the new section "Unclean creatures proposed", making it as compact as reasonable and as neutral NPOV and readable as possible. The reader of an encyclopedia has a right to see all points of view, after all, and since I had already outlined the structure, I thought I might as well go ahead and write it (and I have the time). Thanks to Joe407, Debresser, and AlexSig6 for their discussion/debate (above) section "Unclean animals excluded", which gave me some ideas. I decided to go ahead and save you guys the trouble. Look it over and see what you think. Regards! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me. But just so you know, the problem is that there is no unbiased research avaiable on the subject, so you can't really "cite" any works that would shed light on the matter resorting to original research. I'm glad that you have resorted to quoting the original text. Also, and this is my opinion on the subject, the "tachash" covering of the Tabernacle was on top of all the coverings, thus it had to have certain properties that would allow it to withstand extreme heat and sunlight (UV light) and desert weather. This means that it might have been some sort of "fur" perhaps (skin+hair). A buffalo would be a good example. You can also see one of my images on my blog that shows "contemporary" nomads. The way they cover they tents is very similar to the Tabernacle: they spread some sort of embroidered covering as a interior decor (optional), then the goat's hair covering (a must, or you'd die from heat), during winter in cold regions a skin covering is a must, and like I said they also may cover the tent with some sort of extra covering (can be fur, branches, vegetation, e.t.c). Hope this helps Aleksig6 (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Aleksig6 - You raise a great point that there is no unbiased research on the matter. The only "first hand" accounts we have are the Bible verses and everything else is conjecture or oral tradition.  This makes this article a challenge.  No OR means that we can only quote written sources and no conjecture allowed by us (the WP editors).  LittleOldManRetired is doing quite a job on combing the old revision of this page (filled with junk though they were at points) and pulling out sources and info.  Very nice. Joe407 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite good! Sharp!  Try to provide a reliable verifiable third-party publication that says everything you've just pointed out here (you must have gotten the info somewhere, so I think you probably have it on hand, or at least you know where you can get it—I can't believe from the way you've said it that any of it is your own OR conclusion, but you know WP policy).  The image would certainly be an appropriate accompaniment.  Re the need for outer fur: this has been proposed, but just take a look at the article Adarga (battle shields made of antelope skins) and the fur would not have been necessary.  Besides, the tabernacle lasted from the time of the wandering in the wilderness to the time of King David, approximately 450 years, and unless there was some kind of miraculous preservation at work, all the hair would have fallen off.  The Tanakh says nothing about any kind of prescribed replacement maintenance.  I haven't read anything about hair on the Mishkan, the Talmud never speaks of it, and the preparation of leather coverings normally removes the hair (Tanning).  Anyway—Go ahead!  Let's see what you have! I already like what I see in your suggestion.  Could improve the article! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at the other images on your blog and I thought the best looking one, based on other high quality historical material I've come across in my work, is the third one down "Here is a labeled diagram of the camp with tribes names and locations". If you can get that one and put it at the bottom of the intro section of this article, positioned right after the blockquote text of Ex 35:23 and just above the table of contents, that would be an outstanding headline image, and a real improvement to the appearance of the article. ''Have a great week!" --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I found an image of a model of the Mishkan in the earlier November version that seems suitable for now. At least temporarily until a better one can be found or the WP community decides it isn't necessary or that it's unsuitable for providing additional visual information. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 09:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * LittleOldManRetired, unfortuantelly I do not have any free time right now to contribute to wikipedia - this is a full-time job if you know what i mean. I try to correct small obvious and misleading errors when I do get a chance. Thats about as much as I can do right now. As to my opinion presented above, it is based on my study and research, but since its what it is (OR) I don't think I can add it here. I did cover tachash issue on my blog in several posts, and I also provided links to other resources. But I guess it will be up to you to decide if you can use any here. Sorry I can't be of more help. Aleksig6 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do know what you mean—I'm beginning to believe that any contributor who wants to improve articles can become somewhat obsessively 'monomaniacal' if he or she is not very careful to get away from the computer and get re-oriented to the physical world. (In my youth a preacher I heard once called the T.V. "that four-legged, one-eyed mind-sucker!" and I think, from my experience here, that Wikipedia on the computer might just possibly be called "the hypnotic glass-eyed mind-vampire".) But I discovered a good strategy that everyone can use (HELLO OUT THERE):  take real paper notes on what you see needs doing, compile them, then put 'em away and only work on 'em on a day (or deep, dark night) you've dedicated for that work, so you can forget it for a while and go do something else through the week!  Alek—appreciate your willingness, and your own good sense to back off if its gotten to be too much right now.  But as far as I can see, we've got some good editors with eagle eyes in the WP community who keep track of things and have good ideas of their own and who will contribute when they can. You were some good help right here with some good ideas, even if you can't help for now. It's a big help to know that no one person "owns" Wikipedia, or even "owns" an article—it's absolutely a team community effort and work.  So don't worry about it.  I've gone ahead with trying to finish up pulling out the good stuff from the huge rubbish heap (Joe obviously knows what I mean!—and "Oh,brother", do I appreciate your acknowledgements, Joe!)


 * Now—back to "work": —The most current frustration was trying to use the URL for the Targum Jonathan that I knew had worked before in an earlier version of the article—But It Don't Work Now!  So, since I also knew that plenty of copies of Jonathan exist and can be obtained from several reliable Jewish publication firms and from lending libraries (interlibrary loans) I knew that even if a link can't be provided it remains a verifiable source of the text quoted here in the article, so I went ahead and removed the URL address in the footnote, but left the footnote itself with the word כהניא ( khn ) from the Targum.  Any reader can do an online search for "Targum Jonathan" at other sites to verify the wording in the text (better be able to read Aramaic without English translation, though), and even purchase a copy online if they want one.  Disappointing—BUT...  It may be, in the future, as it turned out with the chabad.org Rashi commentary in English that suddenly evaporated back several months ago but recently came back (improved!), that the same online text of Targum Jonathan for Ezekiel 16:10 will become — once more — available.  Too bad, but you settle for what you can get, as long as it's solid material and not on shaky grounds as a source.  But for now, I'm going to put away my notes and get back here on Friday night or Saturday to see —at that time— if there are any defects left, so I can start to enjoy my retirement once again.  HOO-Hah! Best Regards, People! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Major edit concluded—whew!
I just completed the major restructuring and rescue that I had said I would try to achieve, retrieval of relevant information from previous versions, with additional facts and links that appeared necessary to improve the article. Interruptions were frustrating, but I now realize that I could never have finished the edit in one sitting anyway. I started this last portion of the edit at 9:30 pm CST and only just now finished. I thank everyone who waited for me to finish—thanks for being so patient. Frankly, it was a ton of work that I didn't expect, but the article needed it badly. I got tired of seeing my User-I.D. listed in the edit-history, and because of that, and the number of edits I've done (with good faith), I feared that you guys might think I was trying to OWN the article. No way, Jose! I've done my part. Thanks for the appreciative comments (above). ——I'm disappointed that a couple of the links I retrieved that worked once and were fairly useful now appear to be defective or no longer active. I probably made a typo somewhere, but right now, I need to get some sleep. If any of you can repair the links, or make any other improvements in what I've contributed, have at it! I hope this article is better than it was. I'd like to look at doing a WP:GAN near the end of the month. You guys who've done a lot of editing here on WP will understand if I say I'm pleased with the results of my work on the article, but right now I'd rather not look at it again for a while, not even to check on it. ''Best Regards. Have a great week, people. I'm gone!'' (7:10 am CST) --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work. Due to the respectful manner that you proceeded both in your edits and on this talk page, no-one thought you were WP:OWN-ing the page.  I know that for myself (and perhaps for others) the reason I've avoided this page was due to a long edit battle with an editor who was WP:OWN and I gave up and walked away.  Thank you for your help and civility. Joe407 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Really appreciate that, Joe—thanks. In the meantime, I got some sleep, came back, played fair with you guys and found and corrected my own errors in the footnote URL links so you won't have to.  (I made the mess, so I cleaned it up.  And I learned something—don't copy URL's when you've gone 26 hours without sleep.  "Wiki will wait.")  It's now your baby, people!—I'll check back here in about 3 weeks and see what's happened (if anything).  Best Regards! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Moses and Israel kill tachashim?
Just a thought occurred this morning. I don't recall reading in any of the sources cited in the earlier versions and retrieved for the current one anything that explicitly states that Moses and the people actually slaughtered any animal to obtain taḥas skins for the Mishkan. Does any one know of such a text? Midrashim, Talmud, Rashi's commentaries, Gemorra, etc.— I think such a citation would be useful in the article. On the other hand, it would be equally useful if we could instead state truthfully or factually that "the Talmud and Rabbinic commentaries do not actually say anywhere that Moses and the people slaughtered any creature to obtain the prescribed skins for the Tabernacle, only that they donated them, that taḥashim came to Moses, who used the skins for the outer covering." Some of the sources cited in the current version of the article at this point say that the skins were already on hand when donations were called for and that they came to Moses freely given without regret. Citation of other sources that explicitly say that they actually slaughtered taḥashim with arrows or spears or cut their throats would present the opposite point of view. Any statement that taḥashim came to Moses and that he used the skins can be read either way, including the scenario where they simply came to him as finished skins from the donations taken from the people and he used them for the Tabernacle's outer covering as prescribed in the Torah. Anyone know of a text that says they killed taḥashim and presented the skins? I just couldn't find one. ( And there may not be one — either way, it doesn't make any difference to me. ) It would be an interesting point of view to include either statement in the article, but without adequate support for it no such statement, one way or the other, can be made. It could be challenged and removed as WP:OR. I thought it would be interesting if any of you knows a source that could be cited for either point of view. ''Best Regards, People! Thanks!'' --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no relevance to the topic. The topic is "What does this word mean or what was/is this animal."  The only parallel I can think of supporting inclusion of this aspect would be the way the article about Deer includes a section on hunting.  Even if you find the sources, I'm unsure it belongs here.  Probably in the article about mishkan. Joe407 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point! We can probably let it be as is, and no one will get provoked by one side against the other. It would involve an apparent OR attempt to "prove" definitively that tachash skins were not obtained from creatures that came to Moses at the foot of the mountain in the wilderness of the Sinai.  Right now all Points of View seem to be represented without any obvious bias in one direction or the other.  I tried to maintain that balance when I retrieved the info from the earlier versions and leave out the junk. I think you hit the bullseye dead center about the real topic of the article.  HOO-hah!  People just want to know what "tachash" means.  I know I did.  Thanks.  Best regards --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Arabic
I have seen how images and spellings from original tongues can enhance an article or book. Earlier versions of this article featured Arabic spellings of tukhas and tucash (a word supposed to be like tachash) according to the cited sources (Enc. Jud., B-D-B, et al). So, thinking this would be a good idea, I linked in footnote the Arabic Life Application Bible text of Ex. 25:5 then linked with the ECTACO English-Arabic Dictionary to provide the reader with the Arabic spellings of "dugong", "dolphin", "porpoise", and "seal" (because the experts say tachash is like Arabic tukhash). Then I went to the list of Arabic alphabet characters at the bottom of the edit page to enter the Arabic spelling of tukhash on the page of the article. Problem is, I don't know Arabic, so I tried to render it by sight from the ALAB and ECTACO, but I couldn't get it to exactly duplicate the appearance of the word in either of those linked sites. Maybe I just tried too hard and went overboard in trying to make the article better. Is there someone here in the WP community who can check my spelling attempt and make it right? If what I did is just too much, we can just (undo) the edit. Appreciate it. (I tried.) --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tachash or Tachash skins
If this article is about the Tachash, then why is the first sentence about Tachash skins, and the bolded beginning of the article is likewise "Tachsh skins"? Debresser (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. We should fix it.  I guess the reason it is like that is that the only mention of a Tachash is regarding the skin.  Still, it should be fixed. Joe407 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When I began working on this article the quotations were already in place (I didn't put 'em there), but they were confusing to read in the form presented. Apparently they were provided to answer the reader's potential question "Where does the Bible say tachash?"  (Without them the question will come to mind.)  The 13 texts were already listed with links to sites displaying the Masoretic Hebrew with English.  The last quotation in the list did mention the single form "tachash" without the word/s for skin/s.  I expanded their presentation on the page only to highlight the differences in spelling between tachash and tachashim to avoid confusion when they go to the Hebrew-English sites.  Since the reader may wonder "where does it say that?" (especially if they are used to reading the KJV) the 13 quotations don't really seem superfluous.  The Bible is our only primary source for the words תחש and תחשים, so it seems only basic to cite it as the original text.  The lead does say that the Bible nowhere says the word means a mammal.  What you seem to be suggesting is to do away with the Bible references altogether and concentrate on the animal Tachash of the Talmud.  The title of the article is about the word itself, as Joe407 pointed out—it doesn't say "The Tachash".  Perhaps a separate article on The Tachash (animal) of the Talmud would be appropriate, with a notation to see main article.  What do you think, people?  Best regards --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just remembered a similar situation years ago. My senior editors came up with a compromise that the stubborn submitting author finally found acceptible.  I would like to try that here.  I think both of you are right.  There is a technical issue with the title and the opening lead.  It should be fixed.  Since it's a deja-vu situation so familiar to me, I'm going to go ahead with an (undo) of Debresser's good faith edit and a re-write similar to the one we did years ago.  Please, guys, this is not intended to be an edit war. Just take a look at it and see if it works. Respects. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it is reasonable that in the lead we use the majority opinion that Tachash refers to an animal (whatever animal it may be) and that in body of the article also note the opinions that Tachash is a process of leather working (whatever process it may be). As such an opening phrase of "The Tachash..." using it as a noun is more appropriate than "Tachash is..." using it as a verb. Joe407 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (I wrote this in a friendly tone, please read it that way.) Do statistics actually exist demonstrating which is the majority opinion?  Which one appears to be the actual majority opinion depends entirely on your own cultural point of view which informs your expectation.  For example, I am very widely read, I could even say well-informed about a lot of things, but I had not heard of the animal Tachash until I looked up the term here in Wikipedia.  I was more familiar with the word in Strong's Concordance, and even then it was a "badger" until I got hold of a copy of the NAB, which says "tahash".  No one I knew personally and online had ever heard of the animal tachash, either.  For my part I couldn't have said that it was the majority opinion, based on everything I've seen and heard and read.  I still can't, even now, and I'm more informed than before, ever since I started working to improve this article.  The article as it is now first cites the earliest occurance of the term (in the Tanakh) followed immediately by the Rabbinical opinion that it means an animal.  I think that, at least, meets your expectation.  Some divergent translations are then briefly noted.  The body of the article then develops how the meaning unfolded.  If the intro lead starts with the Talmudic animal noun, the original adjective usage in the Tanakh appears posterior to the Rabbinical clarification which actually came later and would psychologically slant the reader's initial impression toward that definition as the primary one, and it isn't, actually, according to all the information available on the original ancient usage of the word, even in the Tanakh.  Frankly, it would be a distortion of information and a loss of WP:NPOV.  According to what's here in the article, the opinion that the Talmudic view is the original meaning of the original Biblical word tachash is not even applicable to the work of translators.  It's not even a minority opinion, barely considered, if at all.  They prefer badgers, dolphins, seals, and dugongs instead, and none of these has a horn.  The rhinoceros and the narwhal do, but they ain't big enough.  I can appreciate that someone like yourself—who apparently grew up hearing about the Tachash—would believe that this is overwhelmingly the majority opinion, so that it would seem natural that the definition most familiar to you should appear first.  Please believe me, when I say that without actual statistical evidence that what you have said is in fact the majority opinion, it should not be presented as if it is.  Based solidly on what I do know, I doubt that most cultures and levels of society have ever heard of tachash skins or of the animal tachash as described in the Jewish cultural tradition.  The world is full of Bible readers who have never heard of it.  Statistically, they outnumber the Jewish readers of the Chumashim and the Tanakh who have grown up hearing of the Tachash as interpreted by the Talmud and the Midrashim.  I just hope that the way I revised the intro lead reflects for all of them a genuinely Neutral Point of View, and is equally acceptible to you as such, even if according to Wikipedia policy it isn't what you expected or hoped it would be.  I can only tell you what I know with certainty, and hope we'll reach consensus on informing the readers of Wikipedia about the meaning of "Tachash" in a neutrally inclusive encyclopedic form of the article.  (Believe me, after years of experience, I know the encyclopedic form and style, even though I'm new to WP, but it's still, after all, an encyclopedia.)  We cannot say "The Tachash is an animal referred to in the Bible..."—the article intro already presents the indisputable fact that "It is not explicitly stated in the Bible if tachash means a mammal or not."  So we're left with a discussion of the variant meanings of the word.  Consider here the fact that for over 2,000 years, readers of the Septuagint have believed that the majority opinion is that the real meaning of Hebrew tachash is a color, hyacinth, and devoted readers of the Greek Bible all over the world today are convinced that it is.  We cannot say "Tachash is a color referred to in the Bible..."—and we cannot start by saying "Tachash is an animal...", either.  Either one violates the NPOV rule.  Again, why not go ahead, both you Joe407 and Debresser, and others, and compose a specifically separate article devoted solely to the Tachash (animal)?  I have no doubt whatever that you could do it justice, and then some!  It seems to have a particularly special meaning to you guys.  Then add to this here current article Tachash, at the place mentioning the Rabbinical tradition of the animal Tachash, the notation [See main article Tachash (animal).]  I really think this would work for everyone all the way round.  Most Sincerely! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Team of four (and more)
This revamped article is not the work of one or two people. I'm pleased that I was able to use my expertise and training to put into writing the suggestions of people more knowledgable than I: Joe407, Debresser, AlexSig6, Editor2020, and others. It's the result of you guys' participation and consensus on what was needed and you deserve a lot of credit for how the article reads now. If I have not done a satisfactory job by you, my apology, and my thanks for having me aboard. Best Regards --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
is obviously the latest sockpuppet of back on his hobbyhorse again. All his edits under this or any other name should be reverted on sight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * For what reason? Is the material unreliable and unverifiable?  What makes your supposition "obvious"?—other than apparently the fact that you simply reject the material outright and need an invented pretext of some kind.  The intense hostility apparent here is mind-boggling! --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mind-boggling? There's a non-denial denial if I've ever seen one.You've been fucking up this article for months and no one has said a word. You have pulled the wool over no one's eyes, regardless of what you may think. You're caught, tough shit, get over it. Revert on sight is the normal treatment for serially disruptive users. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Never in my entire life have I ever been on the receiving end of such unreasoning venom like today. (I had actually finished the article and was about to move on to another subject "Pre-existence" to pick up where I left off.)  Everything here was done in Good Faith with courtesy.  I have never been disruptive: anyone who reads my contributions can see it.  But in any case, with that said, there's nothing else I can do.  With regret. --LittleOldManRetired (talk) 08:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, you've been repeatedly lying your ass off about being a new user with every sockpuppet account you've created, but you've been doing it in good faith. That's a good one. Why don't you pull the other leg, fella; that one's got bells on it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Antiquities
My field is Middle Eastern antiquities and Medieval literature. This subject is familiar. I removed everything that was not supported by historically documented sources. If historical accuracy and reliable sources for encyclopedic information is your prime concern in this article, then it should be satisfactory. You can easily verify it for yourself by the links that were provided. Good luck. --69.66.209.3 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the subject is familiar to you. Drmies (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever considered the Narwhal?
Dugongs don't have a single horn in the middle of their foreheads; narwhals do. 76.91.0.141 (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too—don't think Bible translators care. (Doesn't have fins and scales, anyway...) Weird how article said "Tachash" is skin of Tabernacle, then says Tahash is excluded because it doesn't have cloven hoofs or chew cud. (Don't think writer cared, either.) --Sniperscout (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that the Hebrews used the skin of a narwhal to fashion their tabernacle is idiotic in the extreme. Check the article and you'll see that this cetacean is found only in the arctic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

citations as requested
Just completed digging up, checking, submitting "additional citations" requested by editors in banner top of article—and final last move fixed 2 sets defective links (my errors). Only question: started trying to get citations on my own, but discovered them in earlier versions, so why guys who put up request banner in first place didn't just get those copied out and put in article? Sure it's work! But nothing I did they couldn't do. Anyway, I'm out of here. It's a better article than it was a month ago. I have other things to do. --Sniperscout (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Note to 76.91.0.141 (above): your narwhal is now included by mention in article. --Sniperscout (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to interfere, but I read the article here and liked it and went to the Encyclopaedia Judaica to check it out. I just thought a few facts mentioned there needed to be added to give a more complete picture, especially where it said "the identity of the Taḥash remains obscure."  Hope this helped. If it doesn't, just revert what I did, no problem. You editors would know what's best. 69.66.209.3 (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked (again) since they're User:Michael Paul Heart, a/k/a User:Hermitstudy, a/k/a User:LittleOldManRetired. They seem to be engaged in a conversation with themselves here. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Response after "Edit Conflict" (see Josephus, below). Drmies—  First off, You have a problem if you insist article should have no reliable references.  Second, Question:  Why didn't you simply revert the 69.66.209.3 edits you identify with User:Hermitstudy, User:LittleOldManRetired?  Strongly suggest you look at your own performance here.  I'm going to revert it back to version before User:69.66.209.3 since that's the one you reacted to and is the one that's blocked (again, you said). That version is short enough and has references too. (No need for me to add my 2¢ worth to it now!) --Sniperscout (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Josephus
Came back to article find link "Bible difficulties explained (Google eBook)" intending to click to read—saw new changes by "student input" with ref to Josephus. I have copy, looked at it, found ref. to materials gathered to make tabernacle—parallel with Ex 35:21-29 at Ant. 3:5:8–3:6:1 [3.99-103]. Where Ex says "tahash skins" Josephus says "sheepskins, some of them dyed of a blue color" and says "for of these materials did Moses build the tabernacle". He doesn't say "tachash" anywhere in account of building tabernacle—only says "Tachas" as son of Nahor by Reuma his concubine Ant. 1:6:5 [1.153]. Only skins Josephus mentions in tabernacle are sheepskins. Sounds like Josephus "attempt to explicitly identify animal" source of tachash skins. At least one "historical source" seems made attempt. So got link from googlebooks for footnote, and did partial rewrite of "student input" with all due respect. I wish him well. --Sniperscout (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * planned edit unnecessary now. --Sniperscout (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed impossible, since Sniperscout is indef-blocked as a sock of User:LittleOldManRetired, which in turn is a sock of User:Michael Paul Heart. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not in the Bible
Tachash is not an animal in the Bible. I looked at the links to Exodus, Numbers and Ezekiel in the article, and those Bible links all say "badger". When I saw that I didn't need to read any farther. It's nonsense. Whoever wrote it obviously doesn't read the Bible, that's for sure! The article should be deleted. Former Baptist pastor, Senior Citizen Center. --184.97.61.143 (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe they don't read your bible. Note what the article says: "The King James Version of the Bible translates the word tachash as badger." Not all others do, apparently. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in an earlier, but decidedly unencyclopedic version of the article, here. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

1.I have read and consulted other translations over several decades. The link to the Bible in this article doesn't say "tachash". I meant that if the writer had read the texts he linked to the KJV Bible in the first sentence he would have seen that tachash isn't mentioned in them.

2.I read the link you provided to the earlier version of Tachash. You say it's "decidedly unencyclopedic". On the contrary, I found it to be as encyclopedic and chronological as Noah's ark, Kashrut, and Abomination (Bible). Your support of the current version of Tachash fairly invites rebuttal, point by point, from a worldly point of view—a scholarly, academic, futile in thinking and senseless point of view (Romans 1:22)—with suggestions for improving the article. Former Baptist Pastor, Senior Citizen Center 184.97.61.143 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal—how the article could be improved (and why it should be deleted entirely)
1.The banner asks for "additional citations for verification". Earlier versions of the article had them, but they were reverted. That's nonsense. Improvement —:
 * Restore one of the earlier revisions that has verifiable citations.
 * Alternatively—copy citations from earlier versions and put them in the current article. That too has been done, but it was reverted. That's nonsense.

2.The first sentence says that Tachash is an animal referred to in the Bible, then gives links to the King James Version texts that don't have Tachash as an animal but have "badger" instead. That's nonsense. A reader not familiar with the Bible who hasn't read the whole article yet won't see this as proof but as a contradiction of the statement. Improvement —:
 * Revise the sentence to say that Tachash is an animal referred to in the Hebrew Bible which the English King James Version translates as "badger", followed by the current links to the KJV.
 * Alternative 1—change links to Bible texts to a version that says "tachash" instead of "badger". That would make the point and support the statement.
 * Alternative 2—without initially saying that it is an animal, simply state that Tachash is referred to in the Bible, giving links to a Bible version that says "tachash".
 * Alternative 3—revise the first sentence to say Tachash is an animal discussed in the Talmud, giving the citations to texts in the Talmud with links. Then say that tachash skins are referred to in the Bible, with links to the Biblical version of the texts which say "tachash skins".

3.The current article states that the Talmud and Rashi's commentary describe the Tachash as "a kosher, one horned..."—but no citations or links are provided to support this claim. That's nonsense. Improvement —:
 * cite the specific passages or texts in the Talmud and Rashi's commentary, with links to the online texts.
 * read the size of the tachash mentioned in the Talmud (a skin 55 feet long!), and provide a picture like this one for comparison Paraceratherium size.jpg) has a skin 26 feet long. The tachash was twice this size! To date, no tachash remains have been discovered.]]

4.The current version says "Another hypothesis..."—no citation or link is given in this version to support this statement—''whose hypothesis is it? where is it published?'' That's nonsense. Give the citation and source.

5."...similarity between tachash and the Arabic word tukhas, which means dugong..."—who says? citations needed. This is nonsense.

6.The Jewish Publication Society translation does NOT render tachash as dolphin or sea cow—it says "seal". This is nonsense! (and false)

7."...similar description in the Gemara."—the footnote links to a site without any identification of authorship or source, or evidence of any kind, of that site being a reliable source WP:RS. That's nonsense. (And no one has challenged this footnote link.) The online text link does not tell where in the Talmud is the "dispute regarding its identification", or the source of "one opinion" giving the clues, or whose multiple opinions say that the tachash is the same as the keresh. It doesn't say where is the text in the Gemara that says the keresh is a very large animal, that it is a kosher animal, and that it has a horn in the center of its forehead. Improvement —:
 * cite the texts in the Gemara, the sources of the claims, and provide links to online texts of the Gemara that the reader can see as verification.
 * give the source of the opinion that "the tachash would seem to be the giraffe"—who says?

8."It is not explicitly stated if the tachash was a mammal or not." Nonsense. The article clearly says the animals variously identified as the tachash are all mammals—its the Bible itself (alone) that does not state explicitly if the tachash is a mammal or not. Improvement —:
 * Revise the sentence so it reads "It is not explicitly stated in the Bible if the tachash is a mammal or not."
 * Alternatively—"The Bible itself does not explicitly state if tachash means a mammal or not."

9.Tahash in the English Versions. This is nonsense. Hewlett's argument does not apply to the skins used to make the tabernacle. The tabernacle was made and erected and consecrated before the Israelites were told what characteristics made an animal and its carcass unclean, and before they were forbidden to touch them. Some rabbis (citations have been given in earlier versions of the article) have argued that skins of an unclean animal were used, and that the tachash was a non-kosher animal. Hence, against Hewlett's argument, badger skins would not have been forbidden for the outer covering at the time the tabernacle was made.

10.According to Aryeh Kaplan's footnote to Exodus 25:5 in the online text Navigating the Bible II, several sources translated tachash as "blue". The Encyclopedia Judaica says that the tanna Judah thought they were skins dyed altinon, seemingly purple. The current version does not mention these sources. And that's nonsense. Wikipedia claims that all verifiable information should be included for an encyclopedic point of view to ensure a Neutral Point of View of the subject. These "blue and purple" interpretations were in earlier versions of the article and not included in the current version.

The article Tachash needs citations and a good rewrite. However, from my standpoint as a former pastoral counsellor, I see from the history of this article that it has not had a healthy effect on the editors and contributors who became involved. There has been obsession, error, rancor, bitter in-fighting, and edit-warring, as well as sockpuppetry and blockings of IP addresses and individuals. I have seen this before in my work. This is clear evidence that this article has an evil effect on people over and above what might be expected from its evident treatment of a minor subject, and far in excess of what would normally be expected from a Wikipedia article. For this reason I would urge that instead of improving the article, it should absolutely be deleted, expunged (how about destroyed), for the sake of readers and editors. If I'm right, a very strong reaction to the above critique will happen.

Former Baptist, Senior Citizen Center. 184.97.61.143 (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For a senior citizen who is posting from an IP address you seem to have a pretty solid knowledge of Wikipedia and it's policies. Michael - please get the hell off WP and this article.  Walk away for a while and maybe, just maybe, after the other editors watching this article feel less disgust with the topic and with you, someone will clean up and improve the article. Joe407 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been a reader of WP for more than 7 years in the computer lab here, so it's no surprise that I have a solid knowledge of Wikipedia and its policies—just because I'm a Senior Citizen doesn't mean I have a low I.Q.
 * Your response gives me grave concern. Please—destroy this article before it destroys you.
 * Former Baptist, Senior Citizen Center. 184.97.61.143 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear senior citizen, I appreciate your concern. I have one of my own, and that is that you are not here by accident. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
Given this has only a one-line mention in Ark of the Covenant, and is only known of in relation to the Ark of the Covenant, should we not redirect to that article? One day if it is deemed worthy of a significant section there, we might consider splitting to a new article, but right now it seems rather incongruous to have a separate article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pontificalibus--how about Tabernacle? (Sorry this comes a bit late.) Drmies (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An ex-pastor mentioned this in conversation this morning. Interesting.  Have you looked at the eNotes Reference Tahash site? They have a whole lot more information.  It looks like they got it from you folks.  All the things your own article used to have but have been rejected, they kept as useful for both teachers and students.  I got a lot more out of it than I did from your version here, especially the history of how the word has changed.  Too bad you didn't keep the last version by LittleOldManRetired.  It's even better.  Thought you ought to know.  Just a bystander--184.97.61.143 (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * An ex-pastor? Really? Another one? And he just happened to mention it? What a coincidence. When are you going to realize that nobody believes your bullshit and you're not fooling anyone. Unfortunately, your original research and blind speculation survived on this page long enough for one of the many sites that mirrors Wikipedia to pick it up. That happens a lot. That's no reason for us to reinstate the crap version of this page that used to exist. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Steven J., leave him be...the moment they start editing that article they're blocked. Besides, it might be gone soon. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: —the "ex-pastor" I referred to above is the same one as Former Baptist Pastor, Senior Citizen Center, not "Another one".  On the morning of Feb 3 when we were reading and discussing Exodus, he told our adult Bible class about this article and his recommendations, so I looked your article up and read his critique on this talk page (and I saw how right he was about a "strong reaction"), then I added my 2-cents worth about the eNotes.com copy of the article which I had already read some time ago but read again.  When I told him last weekend that you folks actually took him seriously about deletion and that the article doesn't exist anymore on Wikipedia, he said, "Good! They rendered a genuine public mental-health service.  Now stay away."  Now that you guys have finally stopped blocking our Senior Citizen Center lab and I have set the record straight, I intend to.  Just a bystander--184.97.46.127 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should really stop talking about yourself in the first person. All that socking can't be good for a person's brain. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow what a flashback. I was going through old contribs of mine and remembered this horrific mess of OR... back when it weighed in at over 200K. Applause is deserved all around, folks. Seriously. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 10:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

new content: note from Encyclopedic researcher
I found the article page empty, except for a Redirect. I thought it could be made into an article.

I have tried to provide fresh material for the empty page "Tahash" which, at the time I first found it in Wikipedia by searching "Tachash", contained only a Redirect to "Tabernacle". After making a virtually new article, I became curious and clicked on to the Talk page here and read the entry above, and then accessed the Archives. I was surprised that essentially one form of the past material that was Tachash was the same odd and enormous material entry I found in my original online search for "Tachash skins", posted at http://www.thefullwiki/Tachash "Tachash – The Full Wiki".

After reading the Archives, I hope that what material I assembled here on the Article page, drawn from what I submitted in the previously-created article Badger skins, is an improvement. I wish you well. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)