Talk:Carthage/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quick question

The first sentence contains the following statement: "written without vowels as QRT HDŠT." Now, while this is obviously an accurate extraction from the previous section which calls Carthage Qart-Hadasht, I'm curious whether or not it's pointed out for any reason. Is this just a quaint observation? R ds t br sm rlvnc t smthng? Mn, lthgh t s knd f fn t wrt lk ths, 'm wndrng f thr s pnt t t (Or does it bear some relevance to something? I mean, although it is kind of fun to write like this, I'm wondering if there is a point to it).

It's because the caananite/hebrew/phonecian, and by extention, punic alphabet, has no vowels. Neither does egyptian for that matter. For this reason, transliterations of anything in these alphabets is always done without vowels in that transliteration system, since we can't be sure precicely how it was to be vowel-ized. Thanatosimii 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this article have potential to be a FA?

User:Bridesmill has commented to me that he thinks this article has potential to be WP:FA. I think the potential is there and therefore we should not get so wrapped up in the child sacrifice dispute that we stop improving the rest of the article.

Frankly, the article could be FA even if we left out mention of child sacrifice altogether.

Richard 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Dido and Elissar

I wanted to ask about the "Dido" bit. Is this fact or mythology? I think the "Dido" bit is just something that Virgil made up for the Aeneid and is part of the "creation myth" for Carthage. If my inexpert opinion is true, then the "Dido" section should be moved to a separate section. Same question about Elissar, grandniece of Jezebel. Is this fact or mythology? If the only source is the Bible, then we need to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that the Bible is all fabrication but not everything in the Bible has been confirmed as being true. Is there supporting evidence for the Elissar/Jezebel stuff?

If this Dido and Elissar stuff is not clearly fact, I propose that we move it to a section titled something like "Carthage in Classical Literature".

Richard 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The NO and NL articles both start with reference to Dido in the first para - "According to legend as passed on by Postinus, Carthage was founded by Dido after she fled from Tyrus" No further mention of her is made in those articles, but I think your class lit section has strong merit. Bridesmill 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, any article has the potential to be FA ;) The Dido page here is just stuffed with a good bibliography, as well as links to many good etexts, including both classical and more modern literary treatments of the Dido legend. At least a place to start digging. I think the "historical fact" of Dido is a slippery as that of Romulus. The origin mytho-history of many of the mediterranean cultures clustered in the Bronze Age is very hard to classify as either myth or history. We have input from the writings of Junianus Justinus [1], and Appian [2] as well - Vedexent 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For my own interest - do you have any information on who Postinus was? I did some Google'ing - but the best "hits" seem to be mirrors of the foreign language Wikis. - Vedexent 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the foggiest - translated from the NL wiki - the NO wiki doesnt mention this source. It may be 'Postinius'; but he doesn't come up too much either. I'll have a look on ebscohost when I get back to the office. Myth/history - not just the bronze age suffering from that one ;-) Bridesmill 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is precisely my point about Dido. I was pretty sure she was legendary like Romulus and Remus. But the English version of the article doesn't make it sound like that. If a reader knew nothing about Carthage or the Aeneid, that reader might infer from the article that she and Elissar had been real people.

There are lots of legendary people who may be based on real people but there is not necessarily a strong similarity between the legend and the real person. In these cases, we need to give the reader some indication that we are not talking about someone as clearly historical as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.'

Richard 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, not so sure about Dido - quite well documented - only the fuzzy line between history and legend remains, & IMHO it's on the legend side of the equation, but still germane to how Carthage fits in global context. This Postinus/Postinius individual is the one who has me curious - other than several wikis and several very obscure ghits, I can find nothing - hence will do some digging in meatspace & academic search engines.Bridesmill 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, a discussion of Dido is as valid to place in the Carthage article as a discussion of Romulus and Remus are in an article on Rome. However, is there any need to classify her in the article as one or the other? Rather than saying "Dido was...", or "The legend of Dido says...", just mention her as a product of the sources: "According to Virgil's Aenied (or the writings of Postinus), Dido is described as...". Sidesteps any "fuzzy" claims and lets the reader make up their own mind. - Vedexent 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but - by saying 'according to xyz', to a lot of people that implies that we are citing a fact (e.g. 'According to Pasteur, bacteria can be described as...'); in the case of Dido I think that scientific consensus is on the side of 'hasn't been proven/not supported by credible physical or documentary evidence' although a grain of truth arguably exists; I would prefer citing it as 'Legend recorded in the writings of xyz' or some such. I think to be honest, we have to state where things are hard facts and where some fuzziness exists and where there's more fuzzy than form. Bridesmill 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That seems the only appropriate tack in general. From personal recollection only at this point, there is evidence for the historicity of the "Elissar" personage and for her relatives in the royalty of Tyre, the "metropolis" of Carthage. What role she personally played in the founding of Carthage is not presently a matter of historical record -- history not being co-extensive with possibility. So it seems the article should neither credit her without qualification, nor consign her purely to myth. Her better-known Dido aspect seems to be only partly mythological, only because the remainder is fictional. The role she plays in the Aeneid seems to have orignated with Virgil. That doesn't mean it needs to be left out of this article, but detail probably should be reserved for the Dido article and for others dealing with the Aeneid. --Americist 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again a bold face claim to historical accuracy: We dont know if Queen Dido Existed, Queen Dido of Phoencian Capital (Lebanon) and voaged to North Africa were she settled Carthage. We dont know if its a Legend so then we dont know if its true. She seems to have existed wether the Roman Fake version and the Greek Fabricated version of events doese make clear that these people have a way with "Long Lies" and "Streched Truth" , but because we have no information from Carthage itself as in not even a measly little document as the City was mass murdered by the Romans we cant be sure of anything. What about the Berbers? Well they make it clear she did exist they have vaible historical records.. but ill leave that research to you. Perhaps when this vote is over and the thread is unlocked (That is saying if the turn out goes the right way towards TRUTH, then we can input Tid Bits that bring about a truthfull acounting of things. Signed Marduk

Well said, Marduk.

I think to talk with fascist people is impossible: do they need a cd-rom with Dido's original blog from 8th Century? May be we can discover it, one day, under Carthage ruins...

I do an example: if someone kills you and destroys all of your records on Earth, did you really exist?

Another example: is it possible to destroy the Memory?

Africa doesn't forget.

You didn't exist.

Signed Mohamed

Does this mean something? Paul B 00:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Did you get a brain?

Dear Marduk, please can you tell us more about Berbers thinking of Dido? Are they still loyal to the Queen, after 2.800 years? Thank you very much. Mohamed

Postinus

I've posted a query on nl:wiki asking for their source for Postinus.Bridesmill 17:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Received a response - Postinus was inerted into the NL wiki by an anon user who to date has not provided a source, unfortunately.Bridesmill 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartago delenda est

This article needs to mention the campaign of Rome against Carthage and its lesson for History and Economics classes--you know, the whole Cartago Delenda Est stuff...? Maybe a mention of spreading salt over the fields upon being raized? Even the destruction of the city? Mention something Carthage is famous for!  :) --Mrcolj , Latin Teacher

All these are mentioned, perhaps not all in sufficient detail -- though there are separate articles on each of the Punic Wars and the wars leading up to them, and also some of the specific battles, including the decisive Battle of Carthage. The famous salting doesn't seem to be mentioned until relatively recently, and much other evidence makes it unlikely. So it should be mentioned along with all the things for which Carthage is famous, while making it clear which are historical and which are not. --Americist 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL- It also be nice to put alot of mention in the obliteration of those pesky iberian tribes, if the vote gotes well we can have all the mentions we want.--Signed Marduk

So, about this rebuilding Carthage...

Disclaimer: Sorry, I'm new to the contribution end of Wikipedia, so the functions & forms are foreign to me. I've also not been able to read everything on this talk page.

I'm an undergraduate classicist writing a report/paper on Roman Carthage. I've got plenty of sources/citations, so I can provide some information that the page is lacking (i.e. information about Carthage after the Punic Wars, things like the Antonine Baths, amphitheatre, naval port, &c). My concern is that, being new here, I am not well able to write the additions. Can someone work with me? I've read the Wiki-help articles on how to write on Wikipedia, but honestly, I'm not comfortable trying to tackle something this big on my own.

I don't think I can write the actual entry, though. Can someone work with me on this? -W.

Welcome. You can always dump chunks of stuff here, or just post the references & outline of what you feel would help on the page. Bridesmill 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a section of the Roman occupation of the site. It was deliberatly removed by "Marduk of Babylon". As Brudesmill said, you can always drop chunks of text here - or even rough drafts into the article itself. Trust me - people will edit and polish if they don't like the way it reads. - Vedexent 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanding on what Bridesmill and Vedexent have said, I am currently partnered with a Mexican expert on the Aztec empire. He writes as best as he can in broken English. I and other editors "clean up" behind him. You are welcome to write what you can as best as you can and those of us who have this article on our watchlists will clean up after you if that seems to be needed. Frankly, it's more important that you provide sources and citations than that you provide perfect prose. Many of us can write but don't have familiarity with the academic journals. Finally, if you really feel uncomfortable dropping text into the article itself, just put it here (i.e. Talk:Carthage with a request that it be cleaned up and put into the Carthage article.

Richard 04:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability of child sacrifice details?

No, I'm not challenging the truth of child sacrifice. That was Marduk's soapbox. However, as I re-read the sections on child sacrifice here and in Religion in Carthage there are a lot of details about the child sacrifice ritual that have started to tickle the skeptic in me. If, as the article says, "there is no large body of Phoenician writing that has come down to us" then how do we know these details? Did Plutarch provide all these details? Or one of the other Roman historians? If so, then we should say so by writing something like "according to Plutarch, the nobility raised servant children for sacrifice".

Once again, I'm not going to pull a "Marduk" and insist that these details be excised from the article. However, I'm curious what the source of all these details is. When I figure out how, I'm going to insert a bunch of "citation needed" tags in this section.

Richard 08:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there has ever been any doubt that the claims of child sacrifice have been highly dubious. My opinion is that it is a case of blood libel by the Romans - who hated and feared the Carthaginians enough to wipe them out - or it takes a minor or ancient (compared to he Carthaginians themselves) practice and exaggerates (this is possible - many neolithic cultures did it, and vestiges survived into Bronze and early Iron ages - see Battle of Cannae for the last (recorded) time the Romans did it). I think the emphasis on it is probably Roman and/or Greek propaganda. Still, it should get mentioned, IMHO, as long as the questionability of its truth is also explained. - Vedexent 09:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are omitting the sacrifice of two Greeks and two Gauls during the Cimbrian invasion. (This is, of course, adult sacrifice.). Septentrionalis 00:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who missed it, this is what I found in a Tunisian travel guide:
The Tophet, centre of Carthaginian child sacrifice:
...Also those who excavated the site have supported the view that Phoenicians practised child sacrifice. A Greek writer, the third century BC Alexandrian Critarchus tells us how the Carthaginians would sacrifice a child to Chronus every time they needed a big favour. Other ancient sources say or imply that child sacrifice was a feature of Carthaginian religious life. Centuries later, the sources appear to have been vindicated with the discovery of a sacred precinct in Carthage. Dedicated to Tanit Pene Baal and her consort Baal Hammon, the area contained numerous stelae and burian urns, filled with the cremated bones of infants, lambs and kids, along with amulets, beads and jewllery. Biblical evidence also attends to child sacrifice among the Canaanites, as the Bible calls the Phoenicians... In any event the similarity of the literary sources suggest that child sacrifice was a very real part of Charthaginian religious practice... Miskin 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually not, a book on archeology dispelled this view, stating the forensic evidence discounted it. Rather, this myth became embellished and is the function of the victor's history regarding those it committed genocide to, as is the Black Legend of the Aztecs. The aforementioned work says the only real and scant evidence of this comes from the last desperate days of the Third Punic War. The Romans, in contrast, celebrated their victory over Hannibal, as I recall from Plutarch, by sacrificing twelve virgins; and of course Abraham stood ready to commit his foul deed had he been given divine sanction.Tom Cod 05:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The main arguments FOR the reality of child sacrifice in Carthage seem to be:

1) According to the Hebrews, the Phoenicians did it (and some Hebrews emulated them)

2) According to the Romans, the Carthaginians (who were descended from Phoenicians) did it, too

3) Archeologists have found some depictions of priests carrying children to sacrifice

4) Archeologists have found a cemetery full of children's remains and there is some claim that the nearby soil is full of a particular kind of charcoal

Dig into some of those sources that Richard found, and even the debate on Phonecia.org that Marduk listed. There are alternate explanations as well. I don't know if the issue can be conclusively determined either wat. - Vedexent 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I did but I don't see how it can cover it up. Either way, there's good enough reason to mention the various speculations (which is what the article did in the first place). Miskin 02:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This recent edit removed a relevant reference (which had been there 2 years!) from the bibliography:

• Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context. Shelby Brown. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.

I'd think this should be restored to the article. Based on references to it in scholarly papers, it seems to support the reality of child sacrifice, but someone should report on what it actually says. --Macrakis 03:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sigh... I think we tried to go back to a "good" copy of the article but there were so many edits back and forth, it is inevitable that something probably got lost along the way.

Can you put the reference back and let's hope that somebody who has read the book can document what was valuable in it.

Richard 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The main argument AGAINST the reality of child sacrifice in Carthage seems to be:

1) There is no written evidence from Phoenician/Carthaginian documents of child sacrifice

2) Of course, that is because no significant Phoenician/Carthaginian documents are extant

So, at the end of the day, we're not sure if the charge of child sacrifice is true or just blood libel on the part of the Hebrews and the Romans

That said, I'm not questioning the truth or falsehood of child sacrifice in Carthage.

What I want to know is: How do we know about details like lutes and drums drowning out the wailing of parents whose children were being sacrificed?

Did Plutarch and the other historians write that? If so, we can cite them. If not, those details are potentially WP:OR and need to be removed.

Richard 03:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Hebrews would have a reason to libel the phoenicans, for most of their shared history the Israelites were close allies of most of the Phoenician city states (especially Tyre) also the bible admits that the Hebrews' ancestors engaged in child sacrifice themselves, it was just a common practice in the region back then, and from a pragmatic standpoint it helped reduce the strains of a large population during time of crisis.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know for how long they were "close allies", but I'm pretty sure that the Hebrew (Judaist) identity has been based on the Jews' distancing themselves from their West Semitic "idolatrous" neighbours and relatives. That was necessary exactly because the proximity and the influence were so great. It's a usual pattern with new religions. Similarly, Zoroastrian Persians distanced themselves from some (ethnically similar or identical) heathen Turanians, and after Iran's conversion to Islam the new Muslims distanced themselves from the old Zoroastrian "fire-worshippers", in both cases by ascribing them all kinds of immorality and crimes, in a direct ratio to genetic and cultural proximity. Compare also Christian attitude towards Jews and Greek pagans (i.e. the ancestral religious groups) in the article blood libel.

All that aside, I suppose the Classical and Hebrew human sacrifice propaganda has some truth to it. --85.187.44.131 20:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, but the Hebrews really had to have nearby allies like any other kingdom of their size. According to the ancient record they were one of the primary contributors to a coalition against the assyrians that included many of the neighbors that they so criticized. This is a common trend in history, where a King makes practical alliances with another culture that may be looked down upon as inferior. Tyre was probably almost always the closest allies to the Israelites, soppoedly the king of Tyre helped Soloman build the first temple.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The practice of live sacrifice to ensure the survival of bridges is not all that distant in our own past (Opie, Iona and Peter. The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. 1951. p 275). Having said that, as I understand it, the archeological confirmation of child sacrifice is quite weak. Yes, there are cemeteries for children. And yes, these children were often cremated. But large numbers of children would have died as a matter of course, and those don't seem to be accounted for. It seems to be over-zealous to label all infant burial sites as sacrificial sites. I propose to that the clause .. charcoal "probably from the sacrificial pyres" be changed to ...charcoal "indicating either sacrificial pyres or cremation". Otherwise it would seem to be POV, albeit citable.

Trishm 13:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone archive chunks of this page?

Its up to 115k! I'm not sure how you archive - and I'm just on my way out the door anyways... Vedexent 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've done this (sort of). Mmmmm, I feel like I've just taken a long-delayed visit to the outhouse and unloaded a whole load of ____. That sure felt good.

There are two approaches to archiving Talk pages. You can archive chronologically or you can archive topically. Archiving chronologically is easiest but it's hard to find stuff because everything is a jumble based on who said what and when.

Topically is a lot more work but it makes it easier to say "Interested in human sacrifice? Go look at the archive which has been saved to Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice" So that's what I've done, I've created an archive for the human sacrifice discussion called Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice.

Well, sort of. I got messed up trying to cut and paste just the Human Sacrifice discussion to the new archive so I decided to just copy the whole Talk:Carthage page there. When I have time, I will slowly delete any stuff that isn't related to Human Sacrifice out of that page.

However, it appears that something like 70% of the talk page was r0elated to the Marduk/Vedexent discussion of Human Sacrifice. This Talk Page sure is a lot shorter without that unpleasant series of exchanges.

I think the convention should be to have all new discussion here. From time to time, we can move stuff to the Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice page as appropriate.

Let's move on and get some work done now, shall we? Bridesmill said he thought this article had the potential to be FA. Let's figure out what needs to be done to get there.

Richard 02:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

what a sad collection

A dark day for history and knowledge, I cant belive I was wrong about this site as a central for information. All those stern critics of this begotten loathsome site. No wonder people are fed with this type of bull shit. What a sad collection of informants, Greek and Roman Apologists writing to us YET again about a civilization in which they hate and despise.

Richo that was really nice, go pull onther marduk and develop some intellect and truthfulness.

Well have fun Butt Raping Carthage everyone, iam sure you would like to call all your Graco-Roman Historical Revenist now to join in the fun of perverting information. Good Luck and have Fun

Just remember the Carthaginian's were the greatest people of the med sea, brining wealth,health and prosperity to all the known lands of that region, the exception of the Greeks who's population was almost certainty creating from Raping children and the Romans who elect Animals as there leaders (in this case a horse) submit to Vile and Disgusting Disturbing Orgy's with 7 year old boys and founded there city on Rape and Murder. Iam just so happy and overwhelmed with joy that these two group of people have come to this reunion for onther round with Carthage.

Good luck and I hope you all have fun

Yours truly--Marduk

If I were you I'd seek professional assistance. Miskin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to give up on the article Marduk. You can create a registered user account. This would allow you to contribute to the article (after a suitable wait, and even in the waiting period you can contribute to rational discussions here) - perhaps acting as "Carthaginian advocate" if you like. Being a registered member means you would have to work within the Wikipedia rules and conventions, rather than just shouting them down. I would recommend you read and understand the guidelines that have been quoted at you repeatedly, and get aquainted with the conventions here in the meantime, if that is a road you want to pursue. Personalities aside, if your arguments are backed by evidence (published works), sources, footnotes, etc., and you can respect (even if you don't like) other points-of-views and valid sources, your viewpoints can be blended into the article - perhaps creating a point/counterpoint structure discussing the controversy over some points. In short, you need not "pack up and go home", but you are now restricted to working wihin the system and with people instead of overtop the system, and despite people. The choice whether it is your methods and ego or a "more balanced explanation of Carthage" that is more important, is up to you. That's my final word on the issue; I'm not contributing another 100k of debate. - Vedexent 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Source

There is a great amount of information on Carthage and other Punic cities on http://phoenicia.org.

Marduk is right. Carthage was far superior to the Classical peoples. Rome's treatment of Carthage for doing nothing more than existing illustrates this. And Greece was like our if-it-feels-good-do-it society of today, built largely upon the backs of slaves. Most of what Greece supposedly accomplished wasn't even created by the Greeks, it was created by the Phoenicians and ripped off from them, then ripped off from Greece by the Romans. Greece was constantly ripping shit off from other peoples, just like the Arab empires would. They even tried to clame that they invented Tyrian Purple.

The Phoenician and Punic peoples were (in my mind, together with those of China) far superior to the Classical Peoples, and there is no reason they cannot get the same degree of treatment.

Why are people even asserting that the Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice? That's just Rome's way of explaining away their horrible mistreatment of an innocent people. I HAVE to take care of that. And that does not even make sense. Where do you think the Carthaginians came from? Did any other Phoenician city sacrifice children?

This is bullshit! And has anyone actually seen the pseudo-article on Tyre? They were more accomplished than Athens, Sparta, Syracuse, etc., and we dedicate an astounding two and a half pages to them! History textbooks write more about McCarthyism, whatever the hell that is! Do we even have a page about ancient Sidon?

I wish the Phoenicians could have built a great empire as did Rome, so then you could at least acknowledge their greatness. Phoenicia was responsible for disseminating the arts of civilization to then Neolithic Europe, inspiring the Classical world, and inventing the concept of modern industrial society, yet nobody pretends they did any of these, or anything at all. The man that destroyed Carthage is praised in the Italian national anthem, and Carthage is praised on a few select webpages. That disturbs me and it should disturb everyone else.

All ranting aside, this article should be written about Carthage, not about Classical viewpoints and opinions of Carthage.

Yeah, I've heard that Plato and Scipio Africanus were in fact of phoenician origin. Miskin 22:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame the Greco-Romans for getting Phoenicians extinct. They were in modern terms "not tough enough for the job". Miskin 22:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think trying to say "Civilization A" is better than "Civilization B" is silly. Saying that "Carthage is better than Rome" is just as bigoted as saying "Rome is better than Carthage". "Marduk's" "parting" statement (yes, the quotes mean that I'm suspicious that the new anon poster is Marduk trying to be nicer and playing "by the rules" - which they should be given credit for if this is the case). Part of the big problem with Marduck ( "and" the anonymous poster above) is not that he or she wished to promote a more positive view of Carthage. It was his/her methods.

Actually, except for direct archeological evidence (which is not as easily accessible or documented), we rely on historical writings, and we don't have any Punic writings that don't exist either as building or monument inscriptions or in translations of Classical cultures.

In short, we write about the view of "Classical civilization's" view of Carthage, not because we think they are right, but because they are the vast majority of what we have. So, we tend to write about the views Classical cultures had about Carthage, and then try and "root out" what are probably the propaganda distortions.

However, I must protest the characterization of the Carthaginian society as "Great, Wise, and the fount of all goodness" (my quotes and phrase). Carthage was a human civilization, and easily capable of barbarity and stupidity, just like every other human civilization. If you want to see Carthage acting in a short-sighted, bumbling way, just look how their handling of the mercenary companies at the end of the First Punic War which sparked off the internal revolt of the Mercenary War. Hello? Don't let your politicians piss off forign armies within your own borders!

The current western view of Carthage may be unfairly biased, but Marduk's equally reprehensible reverse bias is no better. Claiming that Carthage did everything good, that the Greeks were really no more than child-molesting sodamites, and that Rome was nothing more than a pack of bloodthirsty idiots who elected a horse (actually it was Caligula that either appointed his Horse a Senator, or the Pontifex Maximus - I can't remember which. Most Romans agreed that Caligula was a raving lunatic), is no less reprehensible than the "biased and unfair" comments that Marduk objected to.

Rome did not destroy Carthage for existing. They destroyed Carthage because they feared Carthage, and considered it a threat (not a particularly noble motive, btw). Something about Hannibal staring the Second Punic War (the first was just two major nations butting heads over a minor local conflict on Sicily that got way out of hand), invading Italy, rampaging around for 16 years, destroying a Roman army of some 90,000 (see Battle of Cannae), etc. Do you think it was a coincidece that they wrote about Hannibal for centruries after Punic Carthage was ash?

The mention of the issue of "child sacrifice" not only is but should be part of the article. The article, if it is to be fair, should not claim that child sacrifice occured, but the long term historical view of Carthage in this matter is a valid point to mention, as well as all the support and contrary evidence. The article should not say "Carthage sacrificed babies!" and it should not say "Carthage did not sacrifice babies!", and the issue of child sacrifice has been part of the view of Carthage for 1000s of years, so to not mention it is revising "the history of the history". The article should say "Historian X said Carthage sacrificed babies. Historian X was a Hottentot. The Hottentots didn't like the Carthaginians, therefore X is probably biased. Here's the supporting evidence for X's viewpoint.... here's the contrary evidence to X's viewpoint..." and let the reader make up their own mind.

That's really what a good wikipedia article should do: lay out all the veiwpoints, and the evidence and counter-evidence for each and let the reader decide. Vilifying the Carthaginians (as many Roman historicans did) is wrong. Building up a Utopian image of Carthage is wrong. Laying out the views of the Classical historians, explaining why their viewpoints may be the way they are, providing the supporting evidence for both the nice and the nasty things attibuted to Carthage, and letting the reader choose on the evidence is the non-judgemental, and non-agenda-based way to do it (and face it, I did not, and I don't think many people did think Marduk had any intention of an objective article. Marduk decried the "anti-Carthage propaganda" and tried to replace it not with a neutral and balanced view but with "Pro-Carthage, anti-Roman, anti-Greek, and anti-anyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-Marduk propaganda).

As for phonecia.org. Websites are not, in themsevles, good references, and don't prove anything. But websites can point you towards good sources, like published papers, books, etc. which are acceptable references. Marduk seemed to come from that part of the world, so Marduk could have accessed material not easily found by the rest of us. I can't believe that African archeologists aren't researching Carthaginian civilization!

Anyhow, that's my take on the anon's post. It's not about building a "fair", or "unfair" portrayal, or comparing Culture A with Culture B to find out which is "better". It is about laying out all the writing, all the evidence, all the explanations, and letting the reader decide for themselves. That is being neither a "Greco-Roman apologist" or a "Carthaginian apologist"; that is just good academic reporting. - Vedexent 00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Vedexent has written. BTW, it's a lot more fun reading his postings when he's not going head-to-head with Marduk. While I do think there is more credibility to the "child sacrifice" charge than just Greco-Roman blood libel, at the end of the day, we are not supposed to decide the question, just document it. We can cant the writing in one direction or the other IF there is a clear majority consensus in the academic world (i.e. not all crank theories are required to be given equal weight). If there is serious debate in scholarly circles, then we should definitely seek "safe haven" in adopting a NPOV.

That said, I think we should ask how much space should be given to child sacrifice in this article vs. in the Religion in Carthage article. I'm happy to have most of the discussion of religion and child sacrifice moved to the Religion in Carthage article (which I created by extracting text from this article and the Religion in Phoenicia article.

--Richard 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)--Richard 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Richard's suggestion entirely sensible, and would advocate cutting all the material from the end the initial section on child sacrifice to the end of the whole section on religion, since it is elsewhere; doing a slight rephrasing; and adding a header of the form

See also Religion in Carthage#Child sacrifice.

This should be masked, of course. Septentrionalis 22:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Child sacrifice section - revisited

Since this section seems to have been contentious, I think I'd better submit a suggestion before editing again. I think we should delete altogether the "arguments against child sacrifice" section. The arguments presented there are already rehearsed in the earlier sections, so it's sheer repetition. I don't actually see what the problem is here. Human sacrifice and infanticide were practiced in many many ancient cultures. We have evidence for it throughout Europe, in Asia and in the Americas, so there's nothing especially shocking about it, nor is it comparable to the "blood libel" of Medieval times. That occurs within a context in which child-murder is accepted as abhorrant, and so usually describes supposed secret practices that violate all moral norms. In the ancient world this was normal. The evidence is strongly in favour of the reality of it in this case, and we should reflect that. Nevertheless, counter arguments are legitimate, but should not be presented repetitiously. Paul B 15:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for showing restraint. This section has been the subject of contentious debate. I think we were all so exhausted by the debate that once it was resolved via semi-protection, we all just moved on to other stuff and figured we were happy with the current text.

I'm not sure because we never actually voted but I think the consensus is that we don't know for sure if child sacrifice occurred in Carthage although there is strong evidence suggesting that it did occur. However, two editors disagreed and believed that the evidence ran against child sacrifice being practiced in Carthage. Thus, the consensus is that we should not come down definitively on either side of the issue.

I had not looked at the text of this section in weeks and I was dismayed to find that the section was actually quite a mess. I have reorganized the section a bit and removed the redundancy that you pointed out but more work needs to be done. If you wish to do improve the section further, please go ahead but be mindful of the discussion that has gone before. If you can stomach it, please read Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice. Also, be aware that human sacrifice and child sacrifice are covered in the Religion in Carthage article. The text in the Religion in Carthage article is older than the text in the Carthage article and thus there may need to be some regularizing performed between the two articles.

--Richard 17:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't think of them as barbarians

The following paragraph was originally added in the article, as a section under this heading, between Carthage#Evidence from Roman sources and Carthage#Arguments against the existence of child sacrifice.

Although it seems impossible for the modern mind to accept we must remember that the people of ancient times were not aware that not everything was influenced by the gods. So basically this was their way of making sure everything turned out peachy. So we shouldnt go thinking they are barbarians. if you lived in ancient times think what you would do? would you let your crops and empire die or would you take the only other opportunity and try something new and innovative? Also most of most of the people didnt want their child to be sacrificed. 144.139.1.45 10:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved this material here because of its use of

1. imperative mood
2. first and second person
3. awkward construction
4. informal tone
5. poor punctuation, capitalization, etc.
6. rhetorical question
7. bald assertion
8. contradictory argument

Having said all that, I will add that Anonymus here is throwing up pieces of a potentially sound contribution. The many peoples of antiquity who practiced human or child sacrifice, under circumstances regular or exceptional, are as likely to have done so because they considered it the right, best, or only thing to do under those circumstances as a contemporary person is likely to do something similarly momentous. (So-called honor killing springs immediately to mind.)

Obviously, readers of Wikipedia should probably come to the evential conclusion that barbarian is something people have used to demean or exclude other people, rather than that any particular group or groups are or were barbarians in any absolute sense. Ideally an article like this lays out facts (with sources) and if a reader is looking for a way to determine who qualifies as barbaric, she will find it. But it's not an editor's place to butt in and tell a reader how to interpret an article.

What's needed here (among other things) are references to work that has been done on ancient cultures and their use of different kinds of sacrifice, and on the general practice of assigning to others (especially rivals) the worst traits imaginable — or to articles which in turn include such references. That would let editors and readers compare a phenomenon of Carthaginian child sacrifice in both the context of wider practice (where it may not stand out as unusual) and of Carthage's rivalry with Greece and Rome (where it may not be so immediately credible).

--Americist 15:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

More economic and naval stuff

1. Tyrian purple and embroidered textiles
2. Production of
3. Obtaining of salt, timber, ivory, ebony and gold from the interior of Africa
4. Glassmaking and pottery
5. Working of ivory and ebony
6. Trade with the Celtiberians, Gauls, and Celts for amber, tin, silver, and furs
7. How they maintained a monopoly on tin and how this was extremely lucrative due to its usage in the production of bronze; their obtaining secretly the tin from the British Isles and the way they prevented other nations from doing the same by naval force
8. How they had quadriremes and quentiremes and Phoenicia Proper did not
9. How they had ships capable of carrying 100 tons of goods (which was not matched until the 1800s)
10. Possibility of colonization in Australia and Brazil and evidence of ventures as far as Sumatra
11. The Carthaginian practice of trading by auction
12. Trade in precious jewels and works in precious jewels
13. Highly advanced agriculture; Mago's writing about said agriculture; export of wine, grapes, fruits, nuts, and olive oil and evidence of some trade in marijuana from shipwrecks recently found; how this significantly restored their economy after the Second Punic War
14. Sale of dried Atlantic fish and fish sauce
15. Production of famous furniture, beds, and bedding
16. Originally, the preferred ports of sale were in the eastern Mediterranean, where they brought the goods from Africa, Iberia, the British Isles, and Scandinavia and those they manufactured; shift to western ports because of Carthaginian conflicts with Greece ove Sicily
17. Obtaining silver and gold from Corsica and Sardinia
18. Famed horses of Carthage, which formed a significant export and were similiar to Arabian horses of today
19. Works of iron and lead

--KongminRegent

I've encountered much of that in my reading. It would certainly make a welcomed addition to the article. let me encourage you to include it!

--Philopedia 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever revised it. It reads a lot better now.

--KongminRegent

First of all, I think the expansions on Carthaginian and Phonecian trade and colonization are great additions to the article - thank you :) However, I think that there are some pretty broad claims being made here, which I don't doubt, but which need to be referenced. Can you provide sources for these? Like I said, I don't doubt that the included information is factual, just that it should also be referenced. - Vedexent 14:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do I put the sources at the bottom of the page or as inline citations? I am kind of new here and I don't really know that stuff. KongminRegent

New Map

The map is very helpful, but would benefit from some explication. To which period does it apply? Clearly it is not at the height of Carthaginian power - to take just one example, between the Greek and Roman periods, Carthage held unchallenged sway over Sicily..

--Philopedia 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It also doesn't show nearly all of the possessions in Iberia and I believe that it controlled more of the North African coast than just the various Phoenician colonial cities and modern-day Tunisia. Some identification of some of the other Phoenician cities should be included, too (e.g. Hippo, Utica, New Carthage, etc.)

It clearly predates the First Punic War: Carthage is shown holding territory on Sicily — which it lost at the end of the First Punic War — and this fits with the reduced holdings in Iberia, which were expanded between the First and Second Punic Wars, by the Barcids, in response to the territory lost on the Mediterranean islands after the First Punic War and the Mercenary War. I'm weaker on pre-Roman western Mediterranian history, but there were conflicts between the Ancient Greeks and Carthage over Sicily while Rome was consolidating power over the Latin League. Pyrrhus of Epirus nipped over to Sicily to battle the Carthaginians during the Pyrrhic War, after all. I would guess all this places the map between 300 BC and 250 BC, prior to the conflicts between the Roman Republic and Carthage, but in the midst of the Greek and Cathaginian conflicts. I've added that caption to the map. - Vedexent 12:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I din't think about the timeframe. But didn't Carthage also have some colonial cities on the Portuguese coast? I remember something about them rebelling during one of the Punic Wars and aligning themselves with Rome.

Introduction and a few points

I've begun a little cleanup, while also keeping an eye on the Norwegian version for more information. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this particular topic.

A few observations: 1) The intro paragraph is pretty heavy compared to e.g. the German and Norwegian ones. I think it would be better to start describing the city before the empire. 2) The part about Dido is somewhat confusing. First, it is not clear if Dido or Elissa(r) is the most common name. Second, I somewhat got the impression that the high priest was the effective ruler of Tyre. I'm not sure that is a correct interpretaion. 3) It might just be me, but the term "Phoenician Punic" is very heavy. Are there really no alternatives? 4) The article needs to be checked for duplicate information. But all in all, it is an interesting read. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Map Expansions?

I'm currently working with the Mercenary War article, and I've come across a "map need" about Carthage, and was wondering if anyone had any solutions?

I would like to find

1. A map showing the topography of the northeastern coast of Africa (the area around Carthag), as well as the cities of Tunis, Carthage, Utica, and Hippacritae, as well as the Bagradas River, and the canyon known as "The Saw" (see Battle of "The Saw").
2. A map of the acient city of Utica.

Any of you map creators or map experts have any ideas on how these might be found/created? - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 04:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation Errors

Someone has added a lot of links to the phoenicia.org website. Apart from the issue of whether this is a good reference or not (that issue has been discussed here before), the citations are incorrect in many cases. Often, the links lead to "mirrors" of works by other writers and scholars. The citations should be for the original authors - not the website creator. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good observation. I will fix that and cite the actual authors (I didn't notice that). Apart from this, it is a fine resource and it is just as credible as any other source of information. Nobody has made any real argument against it. - KongminRegent (talk · contribs) 10:01, 3 June

I would disagree that it is "just as credible as any other source of information" in all cases. Web sites, as a rule (and there are many exceptions to this rule), do not make good references. Typically they are un-referenced: we don't know what sources they are using, or the veracity/credibility of their sources. Additionally, few web sites work under any form of "editorial control" other than the whim of their webmaster. Obviously this doesn't hold true when web sites are mirroring published articles: published articles are more rigorous about their sources, and journals exercise editorial control.

While I have not exhaustively examined phoenicia.org, the cursory examination I gave the site turned up examples of both kinds of articles. The referenced and "vetted" articles might make acceptable references, but I don't think the rest of the articles are valid sources for this article. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

All the sites are referenced, and pretty much every written source other than reference works and journals are subject to the whims of their creators, as well. - KongminRegent (talk · contribs) 5 June 2006

About the tonnage of cargo ships

The claim that ships with carring capacity of 100 tons were not mached again in the 18th century is wrong.

Ships of tonnages in the 100 ton range were very common in the ancient meditarranean and in early modern europe. In fact, there are reports of ships with cargo capacity of 2,500 tons (the Siracusia grain ship build in syracuse in the 3th century BC) to 3,500 tons (the grain ship used to the construction of the lighthouse of the portus) in graeco-roman times. Ships with cargo capacity of 100 tons were average ships.--RafaelG 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Size of the city

Carthage was one of the largest city's in ancient times, with some 700,000 inhabitants, although it was not the second largest city in the world at any point in time. - KongminRegent

In the middle ages some cities of 200,000 were the largest in the wordld. Between the fall of the persian empire and the rise of the great hellenistic cities of Alexandria, Antioch and Seleucia. Carthage could have been the largest city in the world. It probably was the largest city in the history of Tunisia until the XX century.--RafaelG 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's actually quite a lot of evidence to suggest that cities in the ancient world weren't nearly as large as is often suggested, and that figures given (e.g. 400,000 to Athens or 700,000 to Carthage actually refer to the city AND its hinterland (in Carthage's case the immediately adjacent region and the Kerkouane perninsuala). Part of the confusion arises from the usage of the Greek word "polis" - in actual fact meaning city state, but often confused with meaning just "city" (the correct term being asty). Think about it logically; a population of 700,000 for Carthage (which is as large as modern Tunis!), assuming a population of 100,000 or so for several other major cities of today's Tunisia region (e.g. Hadrumentum, Utica) would imply an urban population of at least (and this is a conservative estimate) a million. There is obviously no doubt that Carthage and the rest of the ancient world worked on a primary economic model (i.e. the great majority of people worked in the countryside - there was certainly no industrial revolution at the time) this would suggest that the total population of ancient Tunisia was somewhere in the region of 10 million - slightly more than the modern equivalent. This figure is obviously ludicrous - most countries populations are nearly ten times larger than they were in ancient times - and indeed is completely unsustainable - how could an area develop an equal population to the present day with only a fraction of the technology? A realistic figure, suggested in Colin McEvedy's book on ancient demographics, would be about 30,000-35,000, which would still make it the third largest city in the world at it's heyday (behind only Athens and Babylon). --Phileosophian 11:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Garbage, anti-Carthaginian prancing and child sacrifice

WoW that took a good long time, the amount of garbage and Anti-Carthaginian Prancing going on around here makes this place reak of filth. Reading this whole thing just made me realize how sad and disturbing the time people can go to in order to ruin knowledge and information of others.

Iam going to begin an entire clean up first by reg an account and within a weeks time ill be clearing the filth that has collected here. Most notably the the sacrafice myth or legend second as I see it a page about Roman And greek views of Carthage... well that about does it for me. Hopefuly I can start soon -- Takashi

Hopefully not. Paul B 20:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Before making any edits regarding the alleged practice of child sacrifice, please read the archived discussion at Talk:Carthage/Human Sacrifice. We have been around this block several times before. The current consensus is that we don't know. There's some evidence pointing at the possibility of child sacrifice but there are few extant Carthaginian documents and none of them mention child sacrifice. It could be true or it could be blood libel. We don't know although the consensus among historians seems to be that there probably was child sacrifice.

--Richard 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there really all that much garbage and anti-carthaginian prancing? There was some before, but I think that's been cleaned up by now. KongminRegent 5 June 2006.

Looks like Marduck is returning - I hadn't spotted this before posting below. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 16:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew text

My browser normally has no problem with Hebrew text, but it can't show the recent edit which changed the Phoenecian text to Hebrew. Does anybody else have the same problem? Valentinian ^(talk) 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Minor Changes

I just made a few minor changes, most of them stylistic. But two of them seem most likely to raise an objection, so I thought I'd discuss them here.

Older versions of this article transcribed the Phoenician name of Carthage using Aramaic (more commonly thought of as Hebrew) and Arabic lettering. If I ever knew for certain I've forgotten, but I suspect that the Aramaic transcription was added first. I also suspect that this was not done because of any misunderstanding about the way Phoenician was written. There's a scholarly convention of transcribing Phoenician text using Hebrew letters because they are far more readily available to publishers, and because there happens to be a very close correspondence between the letters in the two scripts, which reduces the ambiguity of a transcription.

Later someone noticed the apparently Hebrew lettering and decided to provide equal representation to Arabic. This had the unfortunate effect of increasing the likelihood that a casual reader would interpret the Hebrew (and Arabic) lettering as more or less direct representations of the Phoenician. And in fact the English text framing the transcriptions was subsequently modified to amplify this misleading message.

After the Child Sacrifice Revolution, I took out both the Aramaic and the Arabic lettering, replaced them with the most immediate Latin descendents of the Phoenician letters in question, and added an IPA transcription — mostly so no one would wonder about the lack of vowels.

But recently I noticed that the Aramaic transcription was back. And rather than wander down that road again, I just substituted the Phoenician itself, using the approved (but not yet published) Unicode standard. I know that means most people won't be able to see the lettering at all. I have a compliant font, and I can't see the letters when in Wikipedia myself. (Some insufficient cooperation between my browser and style sheet, no doubt.) But someday, in theory...

Anyway, the other thing I thought needed explaining was the masking of the etymology of carbuncle. I can't find any sources for a derivation of carbuncle < Carthage, and while there are other assertions in the article now which I find dubious, this is one I feel especially confident in doubting. If a source can be provided for this etymology, no one would be more delighted than me. --Americist 22:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What else do you find dubious? --KongminRegent 16:14, 7 June 2006

Marduk's Return?

I would draw your attention to the edits, and the attitude displayed in the edit comments, by a recent anon editor. What do people think - does it look like "Marduk" is back? (If it walks like a Marduck, and it squawks like a Marduck....) Is it time to put the page under partial protection again? - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a reassurance ( ;) ), if it is Marduck (or someone who is channeling Marduck's spirit :p ), I don't plan on debating them this time; nor do I think anyone else should waste their time doing so. We firmly thrashed out the rules of Wikipedia, the conventions regarding sources, balance, NPOV, and citations 101 ways from Sunday last time. If any anon editors - marduck or not - can't follow them, we lock the page down under partial protection like last time. I don't see the need to get locked in endless debate and edit/revert wars like last time. The rules are clear; we enforce them. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 17:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good, Vedexent. Let's keep an eye on this article but "Don't feed the trolls".

"Never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."

--Richard 18:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, all of the sudden I feel pity for this article, "channeling Marduck's spirit" looks like someone is spending way to much time on the net LOL -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.101.143.201 (talk • contribs)

Just Conflicts?

It seems like the article concentrates overly on the military interactions of Carthage with other nations, and then only in the struggles against Carthage itself. While it is undeniable that Carthage came into conflict with other nations, most of Carthage's influence was economic and trade based - which means that Carthage spread a great deal of culture througout the mediterranean. Even in military actions, Carthage was not always an antagonist. In the Pyrrhic War, before the invasion of Sicily (and thus Carthage's direct involvement in the conflicts), Carthage actually signed a treaty of support to aid Rome against the depredations of Pyrrhus of Epirus . Perhaps a more general discussion of Carthage's international interactions might be called for?

I understand how the wars get concentrated on: they are the best documented historical episodes - but that probably isn't balanced or fair. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. One of the things that has always bothered me about the article was the weight given to the various wars — especially since several of them have articles of their own. But that did reflect a long-standing typical attitude which viewed Carthage as essentially only worth mentioning because of its conflicts with Greeks and Romans, often condensed into the image of Hannibal's elephants. And I've been correspondingly pleased with the recent additions which explore Punic culture, both in itself and in its relationship to its contemporaries.

As things stand, we have several historical sections (Founding, Roman, Today) and the section on conflicts might properly be another in that series. The Founding section concerns Carthage as a Phoenician Colony, the Roman section touches on Carthage as the center of a Roman province. In between, where all the conflicts lie, stand Carthage as an independent city-state and Carthage as superpower. And the discussion of "Life in Carthage" — including sections presently outside that one — for the most part describe those Carthages, ascending and ascendent. So rather than have those sections break the historical series, perhaps they could be put together somehow. And the conflicts would take their places as aspects of Carthaginian history, rather than the essence thereof… --Americist 22:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection: Request for comments

Well, given the recent edits, comments, attitude, and rhetoric by our "mysterious anon editor", if it isn't Marduk, I'll eat my hat.

So, rather than get into another endless and pointless debate, or "tug of war" over the page, I've added an entry in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection again.

As I said last time, I do not like the idea of forcing people out of the editing process - Wikipedia thrives only because of public contributions and debate. However, "Marduk" has, I believe, used his/her anonimity to bypass the possibility of censure when he/she violates wikipedia policy and rules. I believe that "Marduk" is free to edit this page, so long as he/she is held to the same rules as everyone else, and as a registered, non-anonymous user subject to the same penalties for violating those rules as we all are.

I would very much like people - both those of you who support and those of you oppose the idea - to add comments to it please. Thank you.

Vedexent (talk · contribs)

Thank you to those who have already commented. Everyone else who has an opinion, for or against the measure, is still urged to comment. - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign opinions of Carthage

I was thinking about putting in some kind of section or subsection about other civilizations' opinions on the Carthaginians. This could be something that might raise point of view questions and I was just wondering what everyone else thought about the idea. KongminRegent 13:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that discussing the actual opinions is what we already do. We don't have (much) of the Carthaginian's views of themselves, because we have no historical primary written sources from Carthage - so all the historical material is tinged with other cultures' opinions about Carthage.

The article already touches on this fact, and explains that our historical view of Carthage is biased here.

Given this, I'm not sure that a seperate section is required. Perhaps the section explaining the historical bias could be expanded, or mention added of particular opinions that are now discounted, or are in doubt? - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

A Clean future for the article

Once I have finished with work i'll be converting this page completly and then shielding it from the anti-carthaginian baised that has devolped here. First I have already gotten a pro response from the AD's about my idea. In other words iam going to settle this by converting this article into a short tid bits of Carthaginian info much like the quick run through article about Rome. In other words kids Myth's and legends such as sacrafice will have seperate articles all to themselves ^^. I already set up a triad of my student body of at least 17 members with reg accounts to support this move when such oppostion from biased members such as veny peep there little heads out this article will be ready for it. I already have most of the page written all I have to do is complete it and make a few corrections then ill replace the article. This will end the senseless yammering here and put an end to most of the arguments. but then I could see how members who have an axe to grind could contend other wise.Kara Umi 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked the rule book, no editor owned an article! I'll suggest you debate if you wish to make large-scale edits rather than posting threats to disrupt Wikipedia. Creating 17 or whatever accounts will be exactly that. Valentinian ^(talk) 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't bother discussing this. "They" have already been stupid enough to publically announce their plans. They can try to do it, and get their accounts banned from Wikipedia.

"no editor owned an article" exactly and it seems this article is owned by a few miss fit editors who oppose any editions made to the article that doesent agree with there biased point of view of carthage. As I saw skimming through the edit history. Which is why its time to end this. I mostly do edits in anime and japanese oriented articles but learning about Carthage and its history means I have a real passion for this historical era. Which is why iam going to end this once and for all. In any case iam going to refrain from posting further here until iam finished my draft. I hope this will work out best for all party's a quick skim through is just what this article needs not an entire essay. Kara Umi 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you (and your 17 members who most likely share the same IP) have anywhere else to act like a teenage punk? You don't own the article, and don't come in here and talk about misfit editors who actually contribute and follow rules. What do you mean it needs a skim through? Isn't knowledge great when there's so very little of it KongminRegent 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC) KongminRegent

Battening down the hatches

Looks like we're in for another ideologically based "edit war" from Marduk and friends.

I've talked to an admin, and the advice seems to be that we pretty much just follow the guidelines, wait for Marduk and friends to violate the rules, and then the admins can take action: Probably semi-protection of the article to protect it against anon edits and blocking of accounts that violate the guidelines, with banning for repeat offenses.

I think it might be a good time for everyone to be familiar with some sections. Even if "Marduk" is just puff-posing, its always good to know the guidelines, right?

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Citing sources
• Wikipedia:Edit war
• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and the related section on meatpuppets
• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment
• Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

It is very possible the Marduk and friends have very good points and viewpoints to add to the article - and if they can do so within the bounds of the rules, and article balance, that's great. We'll see how it goes.

If they will not or cannot do so, arguing or "brawling" with them is counter-productive, so there is no real point in engaging them in acrimonious debate.

Discussion about points, sources, balancing ideas, etc., is valid, but I think we need to take "the high ground" here.

If they are going to be disruptive, let their own actions "place their neck in the noose" as far as the administrators are concerned.

I think treating any edit war that way takes a lot less out of anyone, and it points out who is in the wrong a lot faster and a lot quicker to everyone. My $0.02 - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I had an amusing thought: Having Marduck around might be good for the article. If you're going to put something unflattering about the Carthaginians into the article, you'd better damn well have it referenced and cited or he'll revert it ;) In the end, more citations = a good thing - Vedexent (talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way to check the IPs of all these Marduks, Yan Yomi or whatever the new one is, etc.? I'm really hoping they're just the same annoying little prankster. KongminRegent 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

They probably are all the same person. No, tracking IPs is moot - they're using account(s) with dynamically assigned IP addresses, so everytime they log in they could be using a different IP. Tracking anonymous users is almost impossible - which is why they can break Wikipedia's rules left right and center and there isn't a whole lot that can be done, except exclude anonymous edits through semi-protection. That was what was done last time, which is why "Marduk and friends" have claimed "17 regular accounts" - semi-protection wouldn't affect those. However, I don't think they've realized that if they break the rules using registered accounts, they'll lose them. Being non-anonymous means there are very real consequences for breaking the rules. We'll just wait and see.

There's a very real possibility this is all "puff posing" to see if he/she/they/it can stir people up, which is why I'm not going to get too excited before "they" start acting up, and will let the admins deal with them if they do :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, even analyzing the range of dynamically assigned IP addresses can shed light on what's going on. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is what KongminRegent is looking for. Can one of you write-up a request for a checkuser on Marduk, Takashi, Kara Umi and whoever else has been writing this stuff? Thanks.

--Richard 18:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Its almost amusing to see the circus of friends Veny and his either "Consorts" or sock puppets and how they are always able to distrupt this article's edits and the arguments here with blind accusations and rather funny rambling between themselves if they are indeed not the same person. Non the less speaking here with unreasonable users (abusive users or single sock puppet users who have broken a few of the rules on more then one occastion). I think thats why Kara umi has refrained from posting here again until actuall editing that has to do with the article can be made, and ill respect him for that and so iam going to shut up right now and leave the less respectible members to there affairs ---- Kadaj

Evidence from archeology

Perfectly reasonable objections about the lack of citation in this section have been raised. I checked, and this section is not in the Religion in Carthage article. It makes some pretty strong claims for supporting the child sacrifice angle. Does anyone know where this comes from, and if it can be cited? If not, it should be taken back out again.

I'm thinking it possibly might come out of:

Brown, Shelby. Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in their Mediterranean Context (JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series, vol. 3; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991)

Which is the source that certain people keep taking out of the refernces section. I don't know, I've never read the book, and hadn't even heard of it until this article. Anyone have any input on this? - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 10:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, someone did add a reference (along with a snarky edit summary), but I don't think it is very authoratative. In fact, the only relevance it has to the entire section is a single sentence: Carthaginians clearly practiced child sacrifice (ev. from burials in Carthage and Sardinia). Objections to websites as sources when they have unsourced and unreferenced claims still hold even if it a university page. True a professor of classics has more cedibility than my plumber - but still people, show me the publication citations. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 15:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Now someone just reverted the whole mess. *sigh* I still maintain that a single line from a single unreferenced website doesn't make a sufficient reference. There has to be better supporting citations out there. Note I'm not saying the material is unsupportable or should be taken out - just that it needs to have better references. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog)

---

Its funny, Marduk the user vendexent is parnoid of is the only one who made major contrabutions to this page and is the sole reason for raising it out of the trash heap tho there is still alot of work to be done and it will be done. However Vendexent has done nothing (As I have simply noticed) other then complain, whine and make major reverts and major deletions to practical writings and then log into the discussion for a round of "You broke the rules, now listen to me cry" The simple truth to this article is vendexent you are ruining it please contribute or stop vandalizing its wrong.

Going through the pages history its what ive noticed iam putting this one in my watchlist, its to bad marduk left. One should also notice where the user vedexent has shown his true motives and reason for being here and that is an axe to grind against carthage as he is what we call Graco-Roman Apologists go here Talk:Tunis. Remember people being in a frenzy while editing is wikipedia's greatest flaw. Id like to ask other more respectible users here to partake in this articles future editions to make it a clean and to the point page about carthage much like the Roman article. Simply put this page is way to long, thanks. Kara Umi 10:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Soon to be Kadaj

Either provide evidence of my vandalism (such as links to specific edits, with an explanation as to why they are vandalism under Wikipedia:Vandalism, and not some "personal definition" you have), or stop making baseless accusations. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 12:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call your edits vandalism, just simple POV-pushing. The vast majority of modern, credible sources agree that child sacrifice _did_ take place in Carthage and the Phoenician world. If you think that this is "hotly debated in some circles", then provide a credible source to support this. Also I removed the ludicrous claim that "Child sacrifice was Roman propaganda" for the more than obvious reasons. Miskin 12:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok - I give up. I've just been accused of taking pushing Marduk's viewpoint. This is insane. I'm not trying to push a viewpoint. I'm trying to get people to balance viewpoints. Yep - it's valid to call for a citation for that - and I can point you, ironically, to a website that does just that. I did not make that claim - what I tried to do was integrate a "tacked-on" claim my an anonymous editor that did that. I edited, I din't claim. So, ironically, I got caught out trying to incorporate a badly edited blurb of text by "Marduk and friends". God is an Iron.

If the "The vast majority of modern, credible sources agree that child sacrifice _did_ take place in Carthage and the Phoenician world." then citing those sections should be a breeze for you. People who make these claims need to cite them. People who make counter-claims need to cite them. That is the POV I am pushing: show me citations for claims, whoever you are and whatever you're claiming! - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog)

I did cite them and you restored the 'unreferenced' tag. Miskin 12:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have, as it happens, already provided a source for the "no sacrifices" position, from Ribichini. However, even he does not deny it outright. He falls back on the line that it was a rare event, taking the view that most of the burials were of infants who died of natural causes. I have a copy of this book, but it's not online, so I can only refer you to this, very perceptive I think, discussion of the context for this debate. http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/garnand/paper.pdf. Garnand's paper is clearly unsympathetic to the revisionist view promoted by Ribichini and others, which he considers to be the result of misconcieved "postcolonial" theory rather than new evidence. He also lists a wide range of sources for the standard view. We could copy those from the article, but I'm loath to do so without having read them myself. Some are in my local academic library, but I don't have time to look at them before the end of the week. Paul B 12:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Miskin: you added this, in this edit here, which is now broken. It has a single line (see above), which I thought insufficient to support the whole section, so I added the template back in to get people to add more citations. If you took that as a personal affront, I apologize. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The one I added in your talk page treats the matter in more than one line. I've cited sources in the past, and they're now lost somewhere in this Talk page. Miskin 13:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is perfectly true - that one did treat it in more than one line. And yes, you've mentioned others over the past as well (I went back and looked at the archives myself just now). However, neither my talk page, nor the discussion archives, get read by many of the people who read (or even edit) the article. It isn't enough that you know about a refernce, or mention it offhand in conversation on a talk page, you have to add it to the article. It is somewhat analogous to the credit card company not caring if you're earning money, or have money - they also require that you pay your bill at the end of the month.

I might agree with you, and I might have noted and even read some of your "mentioned references". Neither may apply to someone coming to the article from "off the web". We're not writing for the people who participate in the talk page, we're writing for the genernal reading public, so claims, footnotes, and references have to be on the main page, or they might as well not exist as far as the article is concerned. Since you know about these sources, I would strongly urge you to add those referneces to the page in general, and specific footnoted citations for some of the contended points. I can't do it - I don't know your sources. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nearly finished

Before I start making to more major type of edits, id like to ask here on this page for the pictures I asked for "marlin", thanks. "Soon to be" Kadaj" Kara Umi 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Brightside

We have all seen books about Rome that paint Carthage in a negative light while not even looking at the cause in the first place,an attack on Carthaginian forces by the Romans. In this site they at least exercise some restraint, even if their sources, the only ones available, happen to be a bit biased. The main thing that critics should be gald about is that wikipedia recognises that the punic wars first started because of Rome.

I would like to turn your attention to this little quote I got from scrumging through my messages. It seems this has gotten out of hand (lol) for a few users or maybe just one. The Moral of this story (the one below) is people please guard your IP's adresses and be carefull when filling things out on the net. What do I mean? Well iam glad you asked, someone here (E. Vedexent) has sent me what seems to be a desperate hyperactive (passionate) message revealing again his true nature and intentions here are. How sad, Really as for me I could care less what happens here personaly this is my 30 minute break on the computer for me I could be here editing this page or go off and chat with my Naruto Fanboy friends :) (lol) or make random correction on articles that have to do with Anime/manga in general because thats what I enjoy. Here I better just post the quote.

""You want to try and ask around, see if the general consensus is whether I am damaging the page, or you are? :) You probably don't :) But in case you really are deluded enough to believe that people agree with you, check out Wikipedia:Straw polls, have a read, and set it up in Talk:Carthage. Other than that - and this note - I'm done with you, because I think you do this for the attention, so I'm done feeding the troll :)

The historical publishing and evidence is out there. You and I could both get hit by buses tomorrow and never come back to Wikipedia, so that neither of us could ever edit again, and you know what would happen? The topics of "child sacrifice" and the alternate names of the "Sea Gate" would get added back in by people who had never heard of you, or me, or the edit war - becaue Wikipedia is a reflection of the facts, the currently known interpretation of those facts, and the history of the interpretration of those facts - including ideas that were mistaken or exaggerated views (and included as such).

You can edit all you like. You can distort all you like. You can fight desperatly to try and erase the fact that for two thousand years Carthage was known (and is still known in some academic circles) as murderers of children. You can try desperatly to erase any mention of the marks that Tunis and Tunisia bear because it was occupied under the French as it was occupied by the Romans. Heck, you can try to downplay the fact that the only reason we know much of anything about Carthage is because of the Greeks and Romans. You can try and remove these unpleasant facts which don't fit into the way you see the world, and thus you don't want anyone else to see those unpleasant facts - i.e. the rest of the world has to see it your way (either that or you are so pathetically desperate for attention and validation that you have to stir people up for attention, but as this is a rather unkind assumption, I'm going with the "historical revisionist" theory). In the end, it will not matter.

The futility of your actions will have nothing to do with me. I'm not debating you in Talk pages; I'm not touching your edits - I won't have to. Unless you and you "friends" plan to stand over your edits and guard them for the rest of time, you will fail. Why? Because someome will come along, and notice a fact that you "missed" and add it when you're not there - that's how Wikipedia works. And you'll probably rip it out. And it will happen again. And again. And again. And someday, you won't be there to rip it out. It might take months. Maybe it will take years. It will happen, because people will keep adding to Wikipedia from history and publications, and you can't edit those can you? :)

Somehow you never learned that just because you say something, that it is true, or that people believe you.

So, have a blast, edit away, distort the entries away from thousands of years of writing. Have fun with historical revisionism. You will fail - and I don't have to do a damn thing. You'll be defeated by the open nature of Wikipedia, people's desire to keep improving and tinkering with things, and two thousand years of historians and their writings. Good luck, you'll need it :) -

I'm done reacting to you anywhere. Like I said, I don't have to - you can't win - it will just take time :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 12:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s. I'm pretty sure this whole little letter will vanish off your talk page once you read it - musn't let other people see the truth after all ;) ""

A copy and paste brought to you by me, its rather unfortunate but its clear now this user no longer has the right (or sanity) to continue to edit this page. Iam sorry you had to see that Kara Umi 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

hee hee, thank you for that, Kara Umi. I agree wholeheartedly with everything Vedexent said. However, it's too bad that he wasted all that time writing it. I've counseled him "not to feed the trolls" but he just can't restrain himself. Oops, I guess I'm doing it myself now. Oh well, I guess I better shut up now.

--Richard 06:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone assume these posts of mine take great amounts of time and effort? I just type fast :) - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Its rather pathetic Richard that you should choose to act as childish as Vedexent, its pretty clear both of you are on the same boat (I wouldent be suprised if you were simply say.. his sock puppet...). Its also apparent that I have become a "Threat" to this Graco-Roman Group in this article (lol) as is clear in the recent behavoir of certain members simply look above you and go to my talk page. But a troll, dont make me laugh western boy. :) Its not surprising that you should agree with him as I have seen in not only one but three pages in this article you have done nothing but agree with vendexent hmmm... ;) (PS Dont forget your troll feed lol) Kara Umi 08:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What ever happened to Carthage (redux)

Previously I wondered what happened to Roman Carthage ([Archived Talk]). Recently, I found the info on the Exarchate of Africa page (silly of me not to have checked), and added a brief description at the end of the Carthage article. Thanks, Throbblefoot 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I hadn't even considered the question until you mentioned it. Ironic that Carthage keeps getting destroyed by the next wave of conquerors... - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mercenary War

Is is worth mentioning the Mercenary War seperately, or is the history getting too long? It is an interesting event (at least I think so), but it is kind of an addendum to the First Punic War even though it was (almost) a purely internal Carthaginian event. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning but perhaps not separately. I should think it can be incorporated just as you suggest: as an addendum to the First Punic War. Just work it into the last part of that section. -Throbblefoot 05:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In which case it already has a mention in the article under the First Punic War - Vedexent 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Of cource, I think it should be well interesting enough to "mention" :). In any case Iam way head of you I havent got to that point yet on my draft but with work easing a bit I should have it in there thanks Kara Umi 12:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You're ahead of us, but you haven't got to that point yet.... OK.... - Vedexent 12:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone really needs to chill out. Ive seen the talk pages all of them, and I understand now where this confederate of historical cynasisim comes from. Apearnetly it started with a cry for help from one of the members here then spread quickly rallying his cohorts to this page and in onther instance a similiar "Rallying Cry" was used to influence the vote ( a big no no ;) ) when a user tried to balance this article but was met with this group. I just wish certain members could find other uses for there time but it just seems this page is going to get hounded on and on...Kara Umi 22:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should stay as it is. The mercenary war is a clearly separate event and should be considered in its own right. After all, wp:not#Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia or some cheap history textbook that has to lump everything together. By the same token, you could argue that the Russian revolution was an "addendum" to World War I. --85.187.44.131 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope editing wont end for this article, it seems things have gone silent for a while now. personaly I would like to see Marduk return he made a great deal of contrabution to this article in fact wa responsible for its tranformation if it just gets cleaned up a bit I think it can go for a nomination. Other then that I hope he does put all that knowledge and passion for Carthage to good use wther in wikipedia or in real world studies. Kara Umi hasent replyed back or made the contrabution he said he would myabe will just have to wait??

Primary sources?

The article contains the following line:

Due to the subjugation of the civilization by the Romans at the end of the Third Punic War, very few Carthaginian historical primary sources survive.

Is this accurate? I thought that no primary sources survived (apart from inscriptions), and that there were no original Cathaginian texts left (I would count Greek and Latin translations quoted by Greco-Roman historians as secondary source). Should this passage be amended, or are there existing Carthaginian primary texts? If so, I would very much like to find them! :) - Vedexent 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There are texts vendexent :). Most come from records by carthaginian trade records, excavation of pottery notes, phoenician accounts of there colony, stories and myths passed down to native people of north africa (Berbers) which themselves have sources and written records, and the abundant writings by travelers and wanderers from varios different places. But a cite? Haha well you wont find one on the net if you do please let me know. Kara Umi 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymologies (Latin/Greek)

Before I try to fix the wrong etymologies for English "Punic" in the article "Carthage" a third time, only to see my changes reversed in a day or two, I guess I should briefly point out that I have been teaching Latin and Greek at the college level for more than 15 years. I know what I am talking about, and I have the relevant dictionaries (the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddle and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon) at hand in my office.

The English adjective "Punic" is derived from the Latin adjective Punicus, -a, -um (that's why the English word ends in a "c"); the older vocalization of Punicus is Poenicus. The word Punius simply does not exist in Latin. The Latin noun meaning "a Punian" is Poenus in the nominative singular, Poeni in the nominative plural. The Greek adjective meaning "Phoenician" is phoinikêios. All this can easily be checked online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform.

Xiphophilos 07:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The fall of Carthage

A recent anonymous edit has expanded the fall of Carthage section. For the most part, it adheres to the course of events. However, its tone is highly slanted (evil racist Romans slaughtering peaceful, egalitarian Carhaginians).

Not only does it attribute causes to actions which - as far as I know (and my knowledge of history is vastly imperfect) - cannot be supported by the historical record (i.e. it could be accurate, but we can't say one way or the other) - but it "glosses over" some of the actual nasty things the Romans did, which probably should be included (escalating Roman demands, the taking of hostages, all arms and armor from the city, and still demanding more, etc.).

So - here's what I'd like to see

• Some evidence of the racists attitudes attributed to the Romans. It is undeniable that Rome wanted to destroy Carthage, and was probably just looking for an excuse. The speeches of Cato reflect this. Nowhere have I seen racist motivations attributed to the Romans. Perhaps this is in other speeches by Cato? Perhaps this is in other documents?
• Some account of the siege from Carthaginian perspective? I have never seen the story of "a small fraction of the population hiding in the citadel, trying hard to surrender". I'm not saying it doesn't exist - just that I'd like to see some sort of reputable historical evidence.
• Some account of Scipio's "kill everything that moves" motive. It is undeniable that he starved most of the population to death, then sacked and burnt the city to the ground, and enslaved some 50,000. He was not a nice guy. However - I'd like to see some historical mention that he decided to "go in an slaughter everything that moves", as the edit implies.
• Some support for the speculation that most Carthaginians died in the latifundia. Perhaps they did - perhaps it is even likely. Show me the historical evidence, or it is merely speculation. The editor speculates that "as only Greeks were habitually used as house-slaves", the Carthaginian population probably worked and dies in the fields. This is incorrect. While it is true that most family tutors in wealthy Roman homes were educated Greek slaves (Greek being the "language of the educated person" in the Greco-Roman world), there were many other household slave roles, and thus many possible non-Greek house slaves. I don't think we have any historical "slave demographics" though, so this is most likely just something we can't say one way or the other.
• Some reputable scholarship about the speculation as to why the Romans demanded the Carthaginian population move inland.

What the editor seems to have missed is that at this temporal distance, we can't address the motives and attitudes behind actions, unless they are specifically recorded. Many times they are specifically mentioned by the historians of the time. Many times they are not, and in those cases it is not acceptable to substitute unsubstantiated speculation as fact. If you don't know something, you don't mention something. You don't just "make up something plausible.".

I hope the editor can provide some sort of backing for these points within the next week or so. If not, I will most likely take out the aspects that cannot be historically substantiated one way or another. - Vedexent 07:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Iam very proud of vendexent he's finaly managed to find something worthwhile and not onther Roman flower throwing agenda. :)

In any case I jus saw the edit and I agree it doesen't need to stay. I doubt the Romans where racist. I mean towards who? The Phoenicians and Berbers who made up Carthage? Well for one thing they both look almost the same, they both have been in close contact and trading worthwhile for some time. Carthage treated Rome like a sorta little brother at the time so I doubt the Romans had any reason to feel greater then more advanced and devolped people of the Republic. In those times I doubt there was such a thing as "racist". People lived under Factions concept rather then a "People" one. There were romans,gauls,greeks,carthaginians,persians etc... but thats it. The only differnce back then and the only "racist" was the line between "Barbarian" and Civilized.82.101.143.157 12:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Kara Umi

No I just think vendexent is attempting onther cynical drive against historical carthage info. The editor however seems to have a silly sense of humor. This line right here nearly killed me lol "allegedly treacherous, money-grubbing and degenerate Middle Easterners undermining the moral fibre of allegedly honest, robust and vigorous Italians"... I think I'll begin right away on it. I dont have much time on the computer as I used to so this is all that i can do for now my promise of reforming will have to wait a whole lot longer I suppose. Kara Umi 14:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well-established that the Romans thought of the Carthaginians as treacherous (hence the derogatory term "Punic faith"). The rest of the description is rather journalistic, but not entirely false. The big difficulty here is distinguishing what the Romans actually sais from later glosses on it, in particular the writings of 19th-20thC anti-Semites (and then responses of anti-anti-Semites!) who used Roman comments on Carthage to set up an Aryan/Semite dichotomy in which Carthaginians came to epitomise alleged "Semitic" money-grubbing, deviousness, degeneracy etc in comparison to the upright Aryan Romans (read The Myth of the Twentieth Century for a lot of this stuff). This 19thC construct then got turned back on the Romans as evidence of their "racism". Paul B 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok - that makes more sense. As you say - it wasn't so much the facts of the edits I was objecting to it was the "journalistic slant" and "attribution of attitude" that I was questioning - which is why I pointed out the objections and gave the author a chance to rebut/edit - whatever. Someone else just reverted the whole section. - Vedexent 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Two little questions.

Granted, The cite of ancient Carthage is now in an arabic speaking country. However, the article specifically says that carthage lost its importance when the arabs attacked it, and it was outshadowed by Tunis. So why is the arabic name of the city in the first sentance of the article? Is that really relevant? Perhaps it belongs in Carthage#Carthage in modern times, but not in the top. Thanatosimii 19:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Arabic name for Carthage is of no special significance, except as the contemporary, local name of the place. I'm presently confused about that. The article refers to Carthage as a residential suburb — I presume of Tunis. And another site lists a Qartaj as the 94th largest city in Tunisia, with a population of 17000 — though without a date or source. The same site also provides information about Carthage (site of ruins), including an alternate name of Qartajannah. The coordinates don't quite match... I don't have any good sources or personal knowledge of the geography of Tunis, but it sounds to me as if there is a suburb there called Qartaj (rendered in English as Carthage?) which is near the site of the ancient city, but not collocal and not necessarily even contiguous to it. Nevertheless, the proximity and the shared name seem to offer no obstacle to identifying ancient Qartḥadašt with modern Qartaj. Such identifications are commonplace, as often the remains of an ancient settlement are, for example, on a hilltop while the modern settlement is at the foot of the hill.

Where the article should bring this up is another matter. Arabic names for Carthage are largely in the article, I suspect, due to the efforts of editors wishing to make ethnic or nationalist claims to it — or at least to blunt its association with Classical Antiquity (identified with Rome and Europe, and viewed with antipathy) or Jews (inferred from previous versions which employed the Semiticists' convention of transcribing Canaanite using "Hebrew" letters, as in קרת חדשת). I haven't tried to remove the Arabic names mostly because their inclusion seems harmless, and partly because I personally like to know all the names of everything. But in the interests of concision, clarity, etc., I would like to settle on one Arabic name, ideally the one used in Tunisia today. And then a review of other articles about ancient cities identified with contemporary ones should be our guide as to how to include this information in this article. --Americist 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm editing this to ask two small questions. I gather that there is some partisan bickering on this page. If I try to add anything, I want to not step on any toes. Can someone sum up the major point of conflict so that I don't blindly rush in and irritate people? Thanks Thanatosimii 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As is so often the case, while this may be a small question the answer is enormous. The best thing to do to get a sense of what might be irritating would be to read through the whole Talk:Carthage page, including the archive. But that won't directly answer your question about the major point of conflict because I don't think it's ever been addressed directly. In general, most people with an interest in the subject have some very strong feelings about Carthage, and some editors have allowed these feelings to determine their positions as to the article's proper content. The most strident and radical contributions have come from what might be simplistically called the "pro-Carthage" camp, which at its most extreme seems to wish that Carthage had decisively won the Third Punic War or that some other circumstance prevented the history of Carthage having any reference whatsoever to that of the islands and north shore of the Mediterranean. This camp also would rather not even acknowledge the possibility that child sacrifice actually occured in Carthage.

The other editors involved seem neutral, or at least adopt appropriately neutral tones. But there have been some subtle anti-Carthage contributions, primarily in the Talk page. (The original versions of the article were heavily anti-Carthage, but that has been and continues to be remedied.) --Americist 17:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The best bet is not to worry about "whose toes am I stepping on", but to adhere to principles of good academic research and writing. I'm not sure it matters in there is someone ideologically offended by the idea that Cato the Elder was anti-Carthaginian (just an example), since we have direct quotations in the canon of historical documentation that he was. In other words, write within the bounds of documentable, supportable truth and you are fine.

Even published, unproven, opinion by notable writers and scholars is acceptable, if mentioned as such,

The well known historian Lucius Barca has advanced the idea that ....

rather than quoting "Lucius Barca's" ideas as "truth".

As for the name: I don't object to the inclusion of the Arabic name here. However you might have a point. The only important terms are those of the Carthaginians themselves, and those used by the general reading public for the article. In this case, being the English version of Wikipedia, that's the English terms - which tend to be the Latin and Greek terms only because the English speaking world got most of its knowledge through the Greco-Roman historians. Without that, I'm sure we'd have our own terms for the Carthaginian civilization, as we do for the Minoan. Thus, in this version of Wikipedia, the Arabic terms are secondary. In the Arabic version of the article, the English would be secondary. - Vedexent 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

raisin wine

Can anyone document passum (sp?), or paseto (sp?), the Carthaginian raisin wine? Chris 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit War?

Hi everyone, Iam pretty much new to wiki (just finished reading some of the rules) and also a history buff. The Punic wars being my most favorite of subjects this is the first article I would like to start on. First It seems like there has already been two edit wars here. I have alot of ideas and additions that i would like to make in wiki "form". So my question is whats the likely hood that my hard work would be for nothing and I get stuck in the middle of the edit wars here. First there doesent seem to be many Pro-Carthaginian members here (...) which isent good for a base of info I think, there is Marduk and kara who both have had edit wars with the other "camp" of this article. And I dont think theres to many anti-carthaginian (pro Roman-Greek) people either who had some wars here and there also. I hope I can bring a neutral point to this article, thanks. Dingo Egret 19:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I just asked that question a few days ago. I was told not to worry about it. If you just cite all your additions you shouldn't have a problem, because deleting cited data is in particularly bad form. Thanatosimii 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way i could see the old version of the page? if any could please help with this Dingo Egret 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You need to pick which version you want. Go to history, pick the date and time of the revision, and you can click on the date of the version you want. Thanatosimii 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, I take umbrage at Dingo Egret saying "I hope I can bring a neutral point to this article, thanks." This implies that there is not currently a "neutral point [of view]" in this article. As a member of "the other camp" along with User:Vedexent and others, I think there's been quite an effort to maintain an NPOV stance in this article in the face of POV-pushing by Marduk and threatened something or other by Kara Umi.

As a clarification of what Thanatosimii wrote, I would say "make sure that your additions are based on citations of reliable sources and work hard to maintain an NPOV". This may sometimes mean writing that "Source A says that X is true whereas source B disputes the truth of X" rather than simply saying "X is true".

It is true that there has been a lot of edit warring in this article in the past, particularly over the question of child sacrifice. I would hope that this will not occur wrt to anybody's edits. Let's be civil and discuss any controversial edits here rather than edit warring over them.

For a start, you might list your areas of interest and outline the nature of your proposed edits here before making htem on the article page.

Welcome. I hope your experience here will be pleasant, enjoyable and productive.

--Richard 23:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)\

Sorry If I seemed to imply that there are Biased (POV) members here but seeing as there seems to have been a lot of edit wars here I would think there are two groups one "pro" and onther "anti" again sorry if i insult anyone. Well first off I made a few addittions to a few other articles already and should like to start here on the Punic War section of the carthage article. Again iam sorry if for any speculation on my part. But seeing as again there isent an agreement on the article yet I would say yes "I hope I can bring a neutral point to this article, thanks." ^^

Ok just got through the history I got the page as it was before the edit wars. It seems Marduk of babylon was responsible for the pages current form, which is pretty good its better than the last one it would be nice if would make more adittions. And also everyone else's to :) Dingo Egret 19:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the edit history closer. "Marduk of Babylon" replaced one set of biases with an opposite, but no less slanted, version of the article, and then showed the temper of a three year old when someone tried to insist that they either temper their slant, or that they provide citation background (which it was fair to ask of the previous edit authors as well). The edit war may have resulted in a more balanced article, because it forced many people on all sides of a given issue to "stick to what you can prove" - which did help smooth out the article's previous anti-Carthaginian bias - but saying that Marduck's edits were a good thing is akin to saying that the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were good things because they taught us that its pretty horrible to use nuclear weapons on people. - Vedexent 12:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Dingo welcome to wikipedia. Marduk of Babylon's edits was the change that this article needed I agree, before it was a mess even tho its changed now it hasn’t really gotten any better. There are still POV members lurking around. POV is what we call Biased people and we may as well call them filth as well its been the scourge of knowledge since the time people could throw bananas at each other and write about it lol ^^.

You have already met a few of them, there’s also onther thing we like to call "CYNICYSIM" it’s a common trait among western biased driven maniacs and it’s closely related to Bias. To give you an example Vedexent here likes to prance around pretending to be the flowergirl of the article lol. But if you push far enough he will more likely show the true weather of his intentions.

LOL but really tho every member of wikipedia is a prized member and everyone makes there contributions just hope you turn out to be a Positive one not a negative, cya Kara Umi 15:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rejoice when you have the ill report of fools." - unknown

Vedexent 16:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The term Carthage refers to...

...both the ancient city and the civilization. True, but there is still to this day a city called Carthage. I'm loath to change an intro on a topic that so many people work on, but since the city is still officially called Carthage, shouldn't it read something like: "Carthage is a city on the outskirts of Tunis, Tunisia. In ancient times it was used to refer to the city as well as the civilization which developed, etc." Or words to that affect? Yes, everyone coming to this page is interested in the historic vice the modern city, but all the same the area is still called Carthage today. --Easter Monkey 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

From redirects

These paragraghs come from Carthaginean Empire and Carthaginean Republic:

Carthaginean Empire(c.550BCE-308BCE) was the Imperial Government of Carthage that was established after the Chaldeans captured Tyre, the "mother city" of Carthage. During this time, there were kings that ruled with most of the power behind them. In 480BCE, however, the kings began to lose thier power to the Council of Elders. The last king, Bomilcar, attempted a military coup c.308BCE to restore all power to the king. He was captured and crucified. The Empire was abolished and the Carthaginean Republic was established, with all power was given to the Council of Elders.

Carthaginean Republic(308BCE-146BCE) was the oligarchic government that Carthage used after the failed military coup by Bomilcar, the last true king, and the oust ouf the Carthaginean Empire. The new government was based on that of the Roman Republic and was centered around the Council of Elders. The government edured until the destruction of Carthage in 146BCE and the annexation of Carthage as the Roman province of Proconsular Africa.

Trade Contacts and Discoveries

I find fault with the following:

"Irregular trade exchanges occurred as far west as Madeira and the Canary Islands, and as far south as southern Africa. Carthage also traded with India by traveling through the Red Sea and the perhaps-mythical lands of Ophir (India/Arabia?) and Punt, which may be present-day Somalia."

There has been no archaeological, nor solid historical evidence, of Carthaginian or Phoenician exploration of Madeira, nor the Canaries. Madeira, furthermore, was uninhabited and therefore no "trade exchanges" could occur. There is evidence from the Roman period the indicates exchange in the Canaries, but only after Carthage was destroyed. Carthage's position was that of domination of west mediterranean trade. Trade with Indian and East Africa would, in all likelihood, have been the domain of Greeks (Rhodians, Alexandrians, etc) or atleast Hellophones. If someone were to present solid historical or archaeological evidence for Carthaginian trade (something better than conjecture would be nice) in South Asia and East Africa, I would accept it. Otherwise, I submit the above offending passage for deletion. Just because it may have happened doesn't mean we should say it did. D.E. Cottrell 05:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are other references to "trade caravans" sent to Persia, etc., as well as trade with Scandinavia and the Canaries. Any historical documentation? Any archaeological evidence? As far as I've read, there is no solid evidence of even trade with Britain, just a possibility of trade. Anyway, any response by the author(s) of the material with which I have issue would be very much appreciated. D.E. Cottrell 19:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Transliterations

This article on an English-language Wikipedia is in serious need of Roman-alphabet transliterations for the Greek and Arabic names sprinkled throughout. —pfahlstrom 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

umm not really sprinkle some salt if your content with "Sprinkling" ...Jehuty Strife 19:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Appearance?

What did the Carthaginians actually look like? Were they African in appearance like the Numidians, Middle-Eastern like the Phoenicians? Or more reminiscint of Spaniards of Iberia? I've found little information on the subject on the internet and my local library is lucky to have a copy of the works of Tacitus but that's about it as far as that era of history (I know Tacitus was much later, just meant in general) Leoroc 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Middle eastern like the Phoenician’s of Tyre etc. Not only appearance but also culture as well in terms of architecture, clothing, etc.. 68.223.146.109 05:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)