This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tachash redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm rather concerned about all the content in the "Gallery" and below. It cites a single source, a self-published book by a rabbi who doesn't seem to have any advanced academic qualifications - our article on Natan Slifkin calls him a PhD student. That book thus doesn't seem to meet our standards of reliability. Even worse, for all I can tell that book doesn't even say what we cite it for. For example, it doesn't even mention the Elasmotherium at all, making that entire section pure original research. I don't think we'd lose anything of value if we removed the galleries et cetera outright (and on second thought I'd also remove the One horn ("uni-corn") section). I see no benefit to our readers in showing them images that no one has associated with the Tachash. Huon ( talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Cognizant of the sensitivity of some of our Jewish readers and of the potential for a strong reaction and for controversial disputation regarding inclusion of a Gallery of images of Unicorns, multicolored animals, and Elasmotherium in an article about the Tahash, I have preemptively inserted the following tag:
![]() | The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
Reliable sources have been cited supportive of views pro and con regarding identification and description of the animal Tachash as a unicorn and as a possible variety of the gigantic rhino Elasmotherium. The fact that any such identification, implicit or explicit, is a violation of Jewish tradition and has no basis in fact is explicitly included. The fact that some established scholars and ancient explorers together with some of the sages of the Talmud have adverted to the long-established reputed existence of unicorns, which includes the enormous Elasmotheres, is also explicitly included (sources cited). The Gallery providing images for comparison cannot be excluded as " unsourced Original Research" merely to support one point of view excluding all representive images, since they are merely illustrative of various points associated with traditional documented descriptions of the Tahash as an animal. The article deals with a traditional Jewish topic, but is not intended to represent solely a particular Jewish point of view excluding all visual representive imagery. I have attempted to provide per Wikipedia's policy of NPOV both majority and minority viewpoints in the article, reflecting both Jewish and Gentile reader interests. See Wikipedia:UNDUE. The stated fact that the Tahash remains unknown to science is simply that: the fact that science currently has no physical evidence to support or deny the ancient existence of the Tachash (and it is unlikely that it ever will), just as currently it has no physical evidence for the Exodus or for the person of Moses. This does not imply that belief in the historicity of the tachash, the Exodus or the person of Moses is irrational, impossible or absurd. What one reader will understand as perfectly reasonable another will understand as ridiculous—or as a form of ridicule of a cherished tradition (which would be a purely subjective impression). It can't be helped. (See "eye of the beholder".) I hope this clarifies the matter. In any case, שלם pax vobis. I wish you well. -- Encyclopedic researcher ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I found this article sitting under the Category "Hebrew words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible" and read it. One part seemed like needed a little help.
It looked to me like there was a jump or gap that needed to be bridged, or filled, in section "Controversy". The section "One Horn ("uni-corn")" with Slifkin's comments about the rabbis saying the tahash was "indeed" a unicorn, with good footnote citations from the Talmud as support, jumped immediately to section "Controversy" with the link to "Possible historical witnesses..." And then it jumped to "There are serious objections..." without explaining the connection. I don't know—the suggestion seemed to be that the sightings are objectionable. The long explanation on this talk page about identifying the tahash as a unicorn and the rhinoceros elasmotherium as a unicorn made sense, so I summarized and put it in the gap. Altho their descriptions are almost identical, there seems to be no reason to link the two animals together as if they were the same thing, even if they are called unicorns, but I thought an explanation that they're not would be better than just leaving the gap as it was, or going so far as an entire removal of the galleries. I like how the pictures helped me visualize the giant tahash with one horn anyway, even if there aren't any pictures of it, or, at any rate, any that say they are. (Kind of the same as liking the fact that the dugong has been called Halicore tabernaculi.) The tahash couldn't look too much different from a giant rhinoceros: a quadruped, with one massive horn on its forehead, as big as a three-story house! (Can you imagine what it would take to bring one down?) I don't think a gallery of the other tiny creatures the rabbis identified as the tahash is necessary, like pictures of the ermine or badger or seal, since there are articles in wikipedia that show pictures of them and their names are linked here. Besides, none of them has a skin 30 cubits long!
It seemed to me, when I first looked at that section of the article, that the way that part was written was trying to make the case with the link "Possible historical witnesses" that the tahash was a giant rhino, an elasmotherium, and that it might have been sighted, which implies (big OR) that it might have been the creature that the Israelites got the tahash skins from, a kind of relict limited to the Sinai wilderness, which became extinct when the people killed them for their skins. So I filled in the gap and simply said "no way". And that seamlessly led right into the paragraph "There are serious objections..." which states Jewish tradition, which is right on.
I am curious, though. Is there a Jewish prohibition against any attempt to visually portray or visually suggest the appearance of the tahash? If there is, that would explain a lot. But I don't think that alone would be enough reason to get rid of the Gallery section.
-- Espresso-con-pana ( talk) 11:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Or delete, or prune back to stub. I have deliberately put "Merge to" tags on both not one as "Merge from" since not clear which should merge to which, or even if either is required. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no longer any mention of 'tachash' or 'tahash' in the Tabernacle article, making this potentially confusing to readers who arrive from one of the articles which link to it. Perhaps the target should be changed? BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 22:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tachash redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I'm rather concerned about all the content in the "Gallery" and below. It cites a single source, a self-published book by a rabbi who doesn't seem to have any advanced academic qualifications - our article on Natan Slifkin calls him a PhD student. That book thus doesn't seem to meet our standards of reliability. Even worse, for all I can tell that book doesn't even say what we cite it for. For example, it doesn't even mention the Elasmotherium at all, making that entire section pure original research. I don't think we'd lose anything of value if we removed the galleries et cetera outright (and on second thought I'd also remove the One horn ("uni-corn") section). I see no benefit to our readers in showing them images that no one has associated with the Tachash. Huon ( talk) 22:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Cognizant of the sensitivity of some of our Jewish readers and of the potential for a strong reaction and for controversial disputation regarding inclusion of a Gallery of images of Unicorns, multicolored animals, and Elasmotherium in an article about the Tahash, I have preemptively inserted the following tag:
![]() | The
neutrality of this section is
disputed. |
Reliable sources have been cited supportive of views pro and con regarding identification and description of the animal Tachash as a unicorn and as a possible variety of the gigantic rhino Elasmotherium. The fact that any such identification, implicit or explicit, is a violation of Jewish tradition and has no basis in fact is explicitly included. The fact that some established scholars and ancient explorers together with some of the sages of the Talmud have adverted to the long-established reputed existence of unicorns, which includes the enormous Elasmotheres, is also explicitly included (sources cited). The Gallery providing images for comparison cannot be excluded as " unsourced Original Research" merely to support one point of view excluding all representive images, since they are merely illustrative of various points associated with traditional documented descriptions of the Tahash as an animal. The article deals with a traditional Jewish topic, but is not intended to represent solely a particular Jewish point of view excluding all visual representive imagery. I have attempted to provide per Wikipedia's policy of NPOV both majority and minority viewpoints in the article, reflecting both Jewish and Gentile reader interests. See Wikipedia:UNDUE. The stated fact that the Tahash remains unknown to science is simply that: the fact that science currently has no physical evidence to support or deny the ancient existence of the Tachash (and it is unlikely that it ever will), just as currently it has no physical evidence for the Exodus or for the person of Moses. This does not imply that belief in the historicity of the tachash, the Exodus or the person of Moses is irrational, impossible or absurd. What one reader will understand as perfectly reasonable another will understand as ridiculous—or as a form of ridicule of a cherished tradition (which would be a purely subjective impression). It can't be helped. (See "eye of the beholder".) I hope this clarifies the matter. In any case, שלם pax vobis. I wish you well. -- Encyclopedic researcher ( talk) 00:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I found this article sitting under the Category "Hebrew words and phrases in the Hebrew Bible" and read it. One part seemed like needed a little help.
It looked to me like there was a jump or gap that needed to be bridged, or filled, in section "Controversy". The section "One Horn ("uni-corn")" with Slifkin's comments about the rabbis saying the tahash was "indeed" a unicorn, with good footnote citations from the Talmud as support, jumped immediately to section "Controversy" with the link to "Possible historical witnesses..." And then it jumped to "There are serious objections..." without explaining the connection. I don't know—the suggestion seemed to be that the sightings are objectionable. The long explanation on this talk page about identifying the tahash as a unicorn and the rhinoceros elasmotherium as a unicorn made sense, so I summarized and put it in the gap. Altho their descriptions are almost identical, there seems to be no reason to link the two animals together as if they were the same thing, even if they are called unicorns, but I thought an explanation that they're not would be better than just leaving the gap as it was, or going so far as an entire removal of the galleries. I like how the pictures helped me visualize the giant tahash with one horn anyway, even if there aren't any pictures of it, or, at any rate, any that say they are. (Kind of the same as liking the fact that the dugong has been called Halicore tabernaculi.) The tahash couldn't look too much different from a giant rhinoceros: a quadruped, with one massive horn on its forehead, as big as a three-story house! (Can you imagine what it would take to bring one down?) I don't think a gallery of the other tiny creatures the rabbis identified as the tahash is necessary, like pictures of the ermine or badger or seal, since there are articles in wikipedia that show pictures of them and their names are linked here. Besides, none of them has a skin 30 cubits long!
It seemed to me, when I first looked at that section of the article, that the way that part was written was trying to make the case with the link "Possible historical witnesses" that the tahash was a giant rhino, an elasmotherium, and that it might have been sighted, which implies (big OR) that it might have been the creature that the Israelites got the tahash skins from, a kind of relict limited to the Sinai wilderness, which became extinct when the people killed them for their skins. So I filled in the gap and simply said "no way". And that seamlessly led right into the paragraph "There are serious objections..." which states Jewish tradition, which is right on.
I am curious, though. Is there a Jewish prohibition against any attempt to visually portray or visually suggest the appearance of the tahash? If there is, that would explain a lot. But I don't think that alone would be enough reason to get rid of the Gallery section.
-- Espresso-con-pana ( talk) 11:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Or delete, or prune back to stub. I have deliberately put "Merge to" tags on both not one as "Merge from" since not clear which should merge to which, or even if either is required. In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no longer any mention of 'tachash' or 'tahash' in the Tabernacle article, making this potentially confusing to readers who arrive from one of the articles which link to it. Perhaps the target should be changed? BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 22:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)