Talk:Havilah

Tutsi

According to this, at least some people believe Havila is in Africa, and is the original homeland of the Tutsi. Tomer^talk 23:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Stretch of Sand"?

Where does the claimed translation "Stretch of Sand" for the name come from? According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the name means "Circular"; no mention of "stretch" and no mention of "sand". I am putting in the Strong's translation with reference. If it gets changed back to "stretch of sand", please provide a neutral (unbiased) reference. In fact, most of the rest of the information is lacking proper reference. Corjay (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References Lacking

The article lacks references and the one article it did reference, "The Pishon River--Found!", is also lacking references and its conclusions are questionable. The article refers to "some scholars" and "many scholars", but references only one, and it is that scholar alone that should be referenced by the Wikipedia Havilah article. Corjay (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 03:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Havilah → Havilah (Bible) – There are several other meanings, it is not clear that this is primary. PatGallacher (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Not convinced the Havilah of Eden seems to be the overwhelming meaning in GBooks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. It also gets a large majority of pageviews.[1] - Station1 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Cush Havilah colonialism"

User:Kikolio, you've recently re-added the statement:

The Haar region also known as Bahrain is thought to obtain its name due to Cush Havilah colonialism.

The citation is to Michael Rice, in his The Archaeology of the Arabian Gulf. On what page, and in what words, does Michael Rice support this claim? Alephb (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I dont see page number but its there, he spells havilah with an e "havileh", try searching the following on google books "havileh bahrain". I can post line by line here if you cant access it. Kikolio (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do post line by line here, the precise words that Michael Rice uses when he endorses the view that the Haar region obtained its name "due to Cush Havilah colonialism". Alephb (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

He does not endorse any views, he just mentions other explanations."Forster argues further that it is the received opinion in this country (the modern province of Haar or Bahrain) derived its scriptual name and primitive colonization from the Cushite Havileh. The Pison of Genesis ensclosed this land, which was the name for the branch of the Euphrates, that ran parallel to the Gulf and fell into the Bahrain Islands. He contends that a direct proof of this region having borne the name of Havileh is supplied in Aval, a name retained for the larger island of Bahrain". Kikolio (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Those aren't Michael Rice's words. Those are the words of E. L. Durand, which he wrote in 1880. So they shouldn't be cited as if Michael Rice supports the claim. Nor should they be cited as if Durand supports the claim, because here Durand is speaking only of Forster's opinion. Can you see why we shouldn't say "is thought" to describe the view of a single scholar from the nineteenth century? Alephb (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"According to Michael Rice, Forster believed the Haar region also known as Bahrain is thought to obtain its name due to Cush Havilah colonialism." Does this suffice? The article is already small it shouldnt be an issue to include various opinions, after all section says possible locations. Historians do not even take biblical Havilah as real rather imaginary. If you still feel it shouldnt be included then you can remove it. Kikolio (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we could do better than that -- if we're going to put Forster's opinion in, we might as well get it direct from the horse's mouth. We could reference Forster's Historical Geography of Arabia, pages 40-41, in his own words. A PDF is here: [2]. Otherwise we're taking Forster third-hand: Rice quotes Durand as paraphrasing Forster as saying ... Alephb (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

What do you think about this source published by university of chicago on the blue nile? p.22-23 [3] Kikolio (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is to make sure that what's said in the article lines up with the sources cited (our policy on this is WP:V). So in this case we are looking at a source written in 1922, but by a very notable person. So we could say, "W. F. Albright argued that yada yada" or even, if Albright mentions what other scholars say, "In the early twentieth century, most scholars yada yada". We'd need the disclaimers because 97 years is a long time in biblical studies. Alephb (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we at least have agreement so far that The Haar region also known as Bahrain is thought to obtain its name due to Cush Havilah colonialism. should be re-written to reflect that we're just talking about Forster's view, and to rely directly on Forster instead of a source that quotes someone who talks about Forster? Alephb (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes we have an agreement, my concerns were just about blanking without adjusting the wordings or referencing the sources from the "root" as you suggested above. Kikolio (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you'd be concerned. However, it's worth noting that on Wikipedia, all content has to actually be supported by cited sources. If someone puts something on Wikipedia that isn't supported directly by a reliable source, it can be removed. And if it is removed, no one is allowed to put it back in without making sure that whatever is put back in is supported directly by a reliable source. So "blanking" is allowed in that context, and "unblanking" is not. The relevant Wikipedia policies on this are WP:V and WP:RS. Alephb (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Alephb Can you please include the Blue Nile being linked to Havilah in the article per the sources I provided? Thanks. Kikolio (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)