Talk:Punic people

Naval Trade

The text states that Their naval presence and trade extended throughout the Mediterranean to the British Isles, the Canaries, and West Africa. The source I can see is only a snippet view. We have no idea what is being discussed when it states "sail up the Atlantic coasts of Spain and France, perhaps even reaching the British Isles." Other references from the same book:

• Page 86 states that a voyage in the 5th century B.C. by the Carthaginian Himilco went possibly as far as the Cassiterides Islands (Great Britain and Ireland) (although there is some doubt if the Cassiterides actually refer to GB&I.)
• Page 97 notes the path of that same voyage to Britain and Hibernia in 650 B.C.

I don't think it's perhaps a good source for this assertion. Certainly there are far more sources that dispute the fact that the Phoenicians ever reached as far as the British Isles. But what about balancing the article a little so that the contested fact of reaching the British Isles is represented? The British Navy is about the best source I can fine to state the reached the British Isles, but there's very little information available about the authors on Google Books. Does anyone have a better source? The current source is too indefinite. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Use of name 'Punics' requires serious support

What is the basis for calling the Carthaginians "the Punics"? This sounds like a neologism to me–maybe even an original coinage, which as basically a non-word, would be even worse than the proscribed Original Research. Need to see a consensus for use of this term from published, peer-reviewed secondary sources, or the article must be renamed to simply Carthaginians.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This sounds to me a lot like referring collectively to Gaelic-speaking people wherever they are found as "the Gaelics". It just isn't an established convention.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point. The article acknowledged right up front that it's referring to the same people as the term "Carthaginians". The latter is the term I've always encountered, and Carthaginians redirects here. Why isn't this at Carthaginians? Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The name Berber comes up once in this article and the reason they are called the Punics and not the Phoenicians is that the Berbers intermixed, had a massive influence on the myths, gods, armies, and Carthage itself in every aspect. From foundation till destruction Berbers where part of the story literally and not only part according to the foundation myth of Carthage they allowed the Phoenician queen to stay and wanted to marry her proving extensive contacts from the start and in the end with Berber kingdoms who supported and later sided with Rome and condemned them. The Berbers had a massive influence on Carthage and along with the Phoenicians the founders of the Punic race. This article is lacking massive specific portions of the story that it's clearly deliberate. Funny that people try to let out the people (Berbers) who along with Arabs thought us that history as they were the ones that provided Europe with the ancient knowledge that was lost in Europe after Rome's demise and was acquired back through Al-Andalus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.243.19 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 July 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Punic people. There was no support for the move as proposed, but universal support for a move. Although Western Phoenicians seems slightly more popular, Carlstak raised a mild objection. The chosen title did not receive any objections and is acceptable to all. (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Punics → Carthaginians – Carthaginians is the WP:COMMONNAME. Moreover, while Carthaginian can be used as an adjective and a noun, Punic (an adjective) is, quite rightly, seldom if ever used as a noun. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment A problem is that, even today, a Carthaginian is anyone who comes from Carthage. A 21st century Carthaginian wouldn't be covered by this article. Maybe Carthaginian people, distinguishing the people, who were of that era, from modern Tunisians who live in Carthage but aren't a distinct people? Largoplazo (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: The terminology is not totally consistent, but 'Punic' and 'Carthaginian' do not refer to the same thing. The latter refers to the city-state of Carthage and its empire. The former refers to all Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean (including the Carthaginians, but also others in Sicily, Sardinia, Ibiza, and Spain). See Quinn, J.C., Vella, N.C. (Eds.), 2014. The Punic Mediterranean: identities and identification from Phoenician settlement to Roman rule. Cambridge University Press, especially the introduction. Also Dommelen, P.A.R. van, Gómez Bellard, C., Docter, R.F., 2008. Rural landscapes of the Punic world. Equinox (with chapters on North Africa, Spain, Sicila & Malta, Ibiza). I agree that "Punics" is a non-word, but why not move it to Punic people? Furius (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed: Carthaginians refers only to the inhabitants of Carthage rather than Western Phoenicians, as Furius said. I would support a move to Punic People or Western Phoenicians (the latter of which is already a redirect to here).--Ermenrich (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that Punics sounds awful, and that loosely speaking Carthaginian could be applied to all of these people, since they all seem to have fallen under the umbrella of Carthage, at least in Roman times. I'm not concerned that some of them might have been technically independent, and certainly not that modern people might be confused with ancient Carthaginians. But if "Carthaginians" isn't acceptable to the other editors here, I think that "Western Phoenicians" works better than "Punic people", and either works better than "Punics". P Aculeius (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Furius, but support Western Phoenicians. T8612 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment any of the proposed titles is better than what's preventing the article's scope from being properly defined. At least it will allow us to revise the lead section (especially the first sentence) and turn the Carthaginians redirect into an article. With that said and taking into account the above comments, I think Punic (people) would be a good choice. M.Bitton (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - support Punic (people). Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: "Punic (people)" should not be the title of this article, because that implies that the word "Punic" is a noun generally used to refer to a person of Punic descent, whereas it's generally used in English as an adjective, like "French". If "Punics" is not a good choice for an article title, which nearly all of us agree on, then the issue will not be solved by making it singular and adding parenthetical disambiguation. If we wanted to use the word "Punic" in the title, then we'd need to use "Punic people", not "Punic (people)", because that's just as bad as the existing title—"that's a Punic over there!" That's why, assuming the original proposal doesn't pass, "Western Phoenician" would probably be the best choice. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I agree 100% with P Aculeius. The entire core of this discussion is the misguided use of "Punic" as a noun. "Punic (people)" is another way of committing the same error. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment After everything I said about the adjective, I managed to let it creep through the parentheses. Go figure. M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose For your consideration:

• Mireia López Bertran says: "Within an awareness of this panorama, it has been suggested that Punic peoples are a combination of local populations from different western Mediterranean areas integrated with arrivals from North African communities, mainly from Carthage. Thus, it is more appropriate to describe this world as Punic rather than part of a "Carthaginian Empire" (Van Dommelen and Gomez Bellard 2008: 12 and 238). Consequently, the use of the term Punic cannot denote ethnic or political identities, but can only be used as an archaeological or historical category."

• Van Dommelen and Gómez Bellard say: "...since Carthaginian obviously denotes provenance from or at least a link with the city of Carthage regardless of period. As a consequence, this term inherently carries an ethnic connotation and there are indeed plenty of ancient texts, including inscriptions, to support such usage. Since Carthage was part of the Punic world during the period to which the latter term applies (6th to 1st centuries BC), each item or indeed person from Carthage within that time frame must be considered Punic. The reverse is obviously often not the case, because Carthage was but one part of the Punic world. Many regions of the Punic world moreover maintained distinct characteristics and identities. It is at this point that problems arise: what is covered by the term 'Punic' and to what extent, if at all, can it carry political or ethnic connotations?". Carlstak (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: For some reason, "Punics" as a noun used by academics will be found mostly in works published by Cambridge University. Olga Tribulato, Josep Amengual i Batle, and Carlos Gómez Bellard have all used the term, particularly Gómez Bellard in his essay "Death among the Punics". Carlstak (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the comments are edging us closer to finding a good title. @Largoplazo, Furius, Ermenrich, P Aculeius, Gog the Mild, and Carlstak:

would you support a move to Punic people? M.Bitton (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would prefer Western Phoenicians, but Punic people is better than either "Punics" or "Punic (people)". P Aculeius (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Western Phoenicians" is also my preferred option, but "Punic people" is fine too. There's actually an English noun derived from Latin Punici: "Punes". But it is a little dated... Furius (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I can just see the hatnote: Not to be confused with prunes. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I second Furius and Ermenrich, although I would prefer a move to "Punic people", which would have the advantage of categorizing this people as speakers of Punic, the offshoot of the Phoenician language spoken by the Carthaginians and those in their orbit. The Phoenician traders who settled in Iberia predated the rise of Carthage by centuries, and they could reasonably be described as "Western Phoenicians", a fact that to my mind counts against using the term as the title of this article. Carlstak (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• I prefer Western Phoenicians, and Punic People would be my second choice. I think "Punic" can be used for the colonies in Iberia too, so I don't see that as a problem. A shame we can't call it "Punes" or "Poenus".--Ermenrich (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be Poeni, plural. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the I couldn’t make an immature “Poenus” joke, could I? ;-)—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the volumes that I cited above include chapters on Ibero-Punic people. I'm not aware of their language being appreciably different from other western Phoenicians. Furius (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Archaeological evidence has shown that Phoenicians from Tyre had established trading settlements in Iberia from the 8th century BC. They were not Punic people, nor did they speak the Punic dialect of the Phoenician language. You guys aren't going to make me drag out my sources are you? I've got them. Carlstak (talk)

• I don't see this as an issue because the same is true of Carthage or any number of other Phoenician colonies in the Western Mediterranean. Scholars nevertheless use "Western Phoenician" or "Punic" to refer to all of them, as far as I know.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to argue the point, I will accept whatever the community decides, but just so we're all on the same page, María Eugenia Aubet has discussed exactly this issue:

"The Roman authors use the term poenus and phoenix, which are merely a transcription into Latin of the Greek phoinix, changing the first consonant, to designate the Phoenicians in general and the Carthaginians in particular, without making any clearer distinction. Poenus, with its adjectives punicus or poenicus, generally alludes to the North African Phoenicians, because the terms 'Punic' and 'Carthaginian' tend to be used interchangeably.

It is modern historians who have magnified the distance between 'Punic' and 'Phoenician' with implications of a geographic and chronological nature very similar to those existing between the terms 'Phoenician' and 'Canaanite' in the east. In modern writings, the Phoenicians in the east are called 'Phoenician' and the Phoenicians of the west, living in the sphere of influence of Carthage, are called 'Punic'. This presents us with a new terminological and conceptual problem: what to call the Phoenicians of the west before the time when Carthage assumed political and military hegemony there. This event took place in the sixth century BC...

Faced with the relatively late meaning attributed to the term 'Punic', covering basically the sixth to second centuries BC, the terms 'Phoenician' or 'western Phoenician' are situated earlier in order to designate those groups and settlements established in the west before the Carthaginian empire. Exceptionally, a few historians prefer to call only the first generation of colonists arriving in the west 'Phoenician' and all the rest 'Punic', or to use the term 'paleo-Punic' to define this ancient colonial horizon.

...So we shall call the Phoenicians of the second millennium BC 'Canaanites', the Phoenicians of the first millennium BC in the east and of the eighth to sixth centuries in the west 'Phoenicians' and the western Phoenicians from the middle of the sixth century BC onwards 'Punic'." Carlstak (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: I first read this years ago, but after rereading the passage, I definitely prefer "Punic people". Carlstak (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is fair. See also Prag, J.R.W., 2006. Poenus plane est - but who were the “Punickes”? Papers of the British School at Rome 74, 1–37 for a detailed study of ancient use of the terms, and Jo Quinn, In Search of the Phoenicians 2017, for a book-length argument that "Punic/Phoenician" of any time was only ever a category of identity used by Greeks and Romans, never by the people themselves, anywhere in the Mediterranean. The whole situation is confusing and whatever we do, we will need to expand the section of this article on terminology, to include sources such as this. But the new article has to have one name, so Aubet's distinction isn't helpful for us and scholars do make use of both terms in a generic sense for all Phoenican / Punic peoples in the western Mediterranean. I note that Aubet herself named the book that you are citing The Phoenicians and the West. Regardless of the name chosen, I do also think it is important for the Phoenicians in Spain to be within the article's scope (although of course they should also have their own more detailed article, as I hope will also be the case for Siculo-Punics, Sardo-Punics, Ibiza...). Furius (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. From my point of view, focused especially on Iberian history and ethnography and on ancient Carthage, I think it is helpful, and gives us guidance how to approach this problem with clearly delineated historical eras as reference points. I believe we should call "the western Phoenicians from the middle of the sixth century BC onwards 'Punic' ", therefore the name of the article should be Punic people. Let's see what Ermenrich and others have to say. Carlstak (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to agree with Furius, but either name would be an improvement over the current name.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I would support Punic people.

Should the second p not be lower case? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It should, if that's where we wind up, although I think "Western Phoenicians" is ahead ATM. Technically it should be "western", but it would be capitalized as an article title. P Aculeius (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: No consensus on a new title that I can see yet. Suggest that a new subsection be created to show support for a specific new title if you think such a consensus possible. Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey: title options

Per the most recent comment in the above discussion, perhaps it's time to have a head count for our preferred options. I was thinking it'd be harder to do a "ranked choice" survey, but it might just be hard for some people to choose if they like two options about equally. So how about this: each person who replies to this survey, please list the ones you find acceptable in order of preference. Leave off the ones you don't want at all. Feel free to use boldface if you have a strong preference. Maybe we can determine consensus this way. As I read it, the options are, in alphabetical order, and leaving out "Punic (people)", which I don't think anyone is in favour of (but feel free to vote for it if you are):

1. Carthaginians
2. Punic people
3. Punics (the current title)
4. Western Phoenicians

And I'll cast my vote:

• Western Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Punic people. P Aculeius (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Punic people. Carlstak (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Western Phoneicians, Punic people, Carthaginians.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Western Phoenicians, Punic people, Carthaginians. T8612 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Punic people, Carthaginians. The first addresses the issue associated with the current title without straying from it. M.Bitton (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Western Phoenicians / Punic people (really, either of the two is fine with me). Furius (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Original research and source misrepresentation

The IP is reinstating "Punics" despite the fact that this has been discussed above. They are also adding baseless WP:OR (describing Bocchus II, etc as Punic) and misrepresenting what a source says about their settlements (the source in question mentions ancient foundations that are not confirmed by archaeology). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Furius: Since you restored the WP:OR (mentioned above) and made it yours, perhaps you should explain why it belongs there. M.Bitton (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through it piece by piece right now. Much of it needs to go (you'll see I've taken out punics & Augustine already), but there were some improvements that I didn't think deserved to be thrown out. Furius (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Terms

User:Largoplazo, I don't get the Western Phoenicians=Carthaginians. Not all Punic cities were Carthaginian at the beginning. Places like Cartagena, sure. But places like Solunto, Mozia and Palermo in Sicily were founded by Phoenicians independently of Carthage. Only later on they became Carthaginian possessions and were "Carthaginianized", with Carthage also founding its own brand new settlements. I'm assuming this is also true for Africa, Sardinia and Spain: there were some places founded by Carthage and others that were Carthaginianized or became Carthaginian but originally were not Carthaginian, albeit still being Punic/Phoenician. Am I wrong? Barjimoa (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right in some respects, which is why I changed it to "sometimes as Western Phoenicians", although perhaps there's only one reference to that term! [User:Rjdeadly|Rjdeadly]] (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean? I think Punics=Phoenicians (apparently in modern scolarship it's the W.Phoenicians only), which *includes* the Carthaginians; my problem is that all Punics/W.Phoenicians are called Carthaginians in the intro. I think we are confusing the terms here? That's why my rationale for the Eidt was: all Carthaginians are Punics, not all Punics are Carthaginians.Barjimoa (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The definition of what is meant by "Punic people" here in the article is still not clear enough: "Punic people" and "western phoenicians" are obscure terms to most people and "Carthaginians" is much more recognisable and commonly used in publications. The word "Punic" alone is unclear and open to debate, as has been clearly discussed by J C Quinn who says "...the modern term ‘Punic’ can carry a great variety of meanings" and is "...often used more or less interchangeably with Carthaginian" (ISSN 2239-5393 Tophets in the ‘Punic World’). In another recent book it is said "...Punic is understood as anything relating to the historical phase that began in the western colonies in the second half of the 6th century BC and characterised by the political, military and cultural primacy of Carthage" (BONDI et al. Fenici e Cartaginesi: una civiltà mediterranea, Roma 2009). I think it is agreed at least that by start of their era in the 6th c BC they were descendents from Phoenicians, but no longer Phoenicians and had a different culture. Other clarifications are needed. Rjdeadly (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe references to the people as "Punics" exist, but I've never seen them outside of Wikipedia. I understand the adjective "Punic" to describe the Phoenicians who colonized an area of northwest Africa and beyond and their civilization. So they're the Phoenicians who settled in the west, but I don't know if they're referred to as "Western Phoenicians". Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's yet another issue I did not consider. Apart from that, my point is that the adjective "Punic" is not exclusive to Carthage; in other words Carthage was Punic, but not all Punic peoples/cities were Carthaginian (at least not at the beginning). Basically I think that "Punic" is not a synonym for Carthaginian but rather a synonym for (Western) Phoenician, in fact it's just a Latin variant of Phoenician. Barjimoa (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the "Requested move 5 July 2021" section above: "Punics" as a noun used by academics will be found mostly in works published by Cambridge University. Olga Tribulato, Josep Amengual i Batle, and Carlos Gómez Bellard have all used the term, particularly Gómez Bellard in his essay "Death among the Punics". I also quoted María Eugenia Aubet:

Faced with the relatively late meaning attributed to the term 'Punic', covering basically the sixth to second centuries BC, the terms 'Phoenician' or 'western Phoenician' are situated earlier in order to designate those groups and settlements established in the west before the Carthaginian empire. Exceptionally, a few historians prefer to call only the first generation of colonists arriving in the west 'Phoenician' and all the rest 'Punic', or to use the term 'paleo-Punic' to define this ancient colonial horizon.

...So we shall call the Phoenicians of the second millennium BC 'Canaanites', the Phoenicians of the first millennium BC in the east and of the eighth to sixth centuries in the west 'Phoenicians' and the western Phoenicians from the middle of the sixth century BC onwards 'Punic'." Carlstak (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know all the details. I know only that the rationale you gave in your edit summary was based on the supposition ("Carthage was one of various Punic cities") that "Carthage" refers only to the city. I reverted your change because your premise was incorrect. If your edit was correct for other reasons, that's fine, restore it (with a valid rationale!). Largoplazo (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Map

@Rjdeadly could you stop edit warring and reinstating your edit despite being well aware of its flaws? Like I said, your map does not a cite a single source and is also entirely inaccurate. Not only is the map low quality, but it lacks tons of Punic settlements such as Icosium, Hippo Regius, Igilgili, Cartennae, Camarata and way more. I suggest you quit edit warring and stop claiming "The map is correct" as it is evidently not the case. Skitash (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash Why not be constructive instead of destructive? It is accurate for the main sites and you are wrong. I see no better map being offered by you. There were no maps at all here before I introduced them and it could well do with more. Rjdeadly (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it's better to present a deceptive and misleading map rather than having no map at all? Either way, your map violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. I contend that it would be more appropriate to feature a map of Ancient Carthage, as that's the empire with which the Punic people are closely linked. If that's not feasible, it might be best to have no map at all. Furthermore, I recommend refraining from engaging in edit warring. Skitash (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Skitash stop edit warring and read the article. You ignored the reference and the title of the verified map. It's obviously more appropriate to start with the most ancient main Punic sites before giving a map of later Carthaginian territory. Rjdeadly (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Take a moment to consider your own advice into account. I have made it pretty clear that your map is WP:OR and does not quite meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability. If there isn't a fitting map to accurately depict all Punic settlement sites, it might be best to go without a map. I have restored the old lead image, which was removed on 4 November for no apparent reason. Hopefully, this puts an end to this fruitless dispute. Skitash (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the concept of WP:OR nor Wikipedia:Verifiability, and still think you know better than authors and their published academic papers. Rjdeadly (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you believe that WP:Verifiability is the sole standard for content inclusion, I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:ONUS. Not all verifiable information must be included, especially if it does not improve an article. It is also clear that you don't seem to understand what WP:Editwarring is, considering that you have been trying to force this unconstructive change for months, with inadequate reasoning such as "The map is correct."[1] and "This version was better"[2]. You have yet to explain why you persist in removing the long-standing lead image. Skitash (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Both maps are included, it seems the issue is the order in which they are placed? Can someone not simply concede on this. Keyboard Editor (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the source of the map by User Editor 'Rjdeadly' (PDF) Punic clay Figurines. An overview | Mireia López-Bertran - Academia.edu (scroll down to see the PDF). Since it is verifiable, I think both should stay, and you can both come to an agreement on the placement. I will not give an opinion in which order as I think it is a minor contention that can be resolved amicably. Keyboard Editor (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the provided source, but the map's caption indicates that the featured locations are only the main Punic sites, offering a very limited selection that is insufficient in representing the numerous historic Punic settlements accurately. If a map is to be included, it should encompass all significant Punic settlements, including but not limited to Icosium, Hippo Regius, Igilgili, Cartennae, and Camarata, to avoid presenting any misconceptions. Skitash (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

So you think you know better than authors and their published academic papers. This is your "original research" that you want to impose on the article. Rjdeadly (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a problem, if a verifiable map is available depicting the main sites, to use it just because it's only the main sites. In the absence of a suitable and exhaustive map it makes perfect sense to me to use the one that's available. Largoplazo (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not like there are no other maps. Here's a much better one (I'm sure there are others). M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Phoenicians - Cunning Seafarers

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: SusJawn35, Cabbagepatch12345.

— Assignment last updated by Mtcav4 (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect caption?

The caption for this figure seems incorrect, first image in article. Punic people#/media/File:Phoenician grinning mask - Cagliari, Museo Archeologico Nazionale (26721011486).jpg

A young Hannibal, pleading with his father, Hamilcar Barca 2600:1700:35A0:1410:C0A6:C95B:D73B:110E (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed now. Darius (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)