Talk:Hannibal/Archive 2

message: If Robert E. Lee deserves to be included in the introductory paragraph's list of great generals, then surely also do the Duke of Wellington and Georgy Zhukov to name just two? Wikipedia struggles with Americo-centricity, and this is a perfect example of it. I would rather not have a great long list of great generals there, but the point remains that though Sherman was of course a brilliant general his international historical renown is probably less than that of the other two mentioned. I've edited it to include Wellington and Zhukov for the moment, but I'd prefer simply dropping all three and leaving the list as short as possible. JF Mephisto 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wellington

message: The one who had modefied the ethnicity is me of course, however the one who keeps blaking it without citing why even tho the article of ethnicity puts on that Hannibal was Carthaginian which seems relevent but please of cours if someone disagrees be my guest...
The one blanking however needs to cite why before doing so
--marduk
:Please sign your messages. Use the button on the toolbar which looks like a signature. Don't take the vandals too seriously we watch this page and revert the blankings within a couple of minutes. They give up eventually. --Darkfred Talk to me 21:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Talk:Carthage page, you can see Marduk is not making edits in good faith or adhering to the Wikipedia dipute process. He/she/they/it is simply ranting, raving, and altering articles to suit his/her/their/its agenda, withough any historical sources - just their own ranting. This person doesn't need to be argued with - they just need to be reverted unless and until they can cite their points - and I highly doubt they can. - Vedexent 00:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: answering

message: Everyone will you please go to the article of Carthage and also read the page Talk:Carthage. Within the article a well thought out and well written article has been written about Carthaginian religious practices. However Vandals and Trolls such as Vedexent has defaced the article and made major deletions without citing why and providing sources. He is clearly a Historical Vandal who has a axe to grind against a people of a different race. He is a Graco-Roman apologist looking to slander Carthage and its like, he has done nothing constructive other then pount and wine on matters in which he has no bearing in nor do I think he has a single clue of Carthaginian History. He has done nothing but Rant Rave and pound his feet on the floor like a lunatic demanding and pounting, he is doing this under a shroud that he is concerned for sources(which I given a wealth of sources) but in reality he is nothing more then an Anti-Carthaginian historical revinist his actions have been noted and I have reported it to the Administration on several accounts. He needs to only be ignored or simply reputed
Now on to the more respectable Posters: Darkfred
Who ever is making these deletions without citing why and without a clear reason is a Vandal and a troll. The section in the ethnicity has been edited to include that Hannibal was Phoenician unless your a lunatic who disagree's with this then please tell us who you are so that we may note you as a TROLL.We don't need to argue with him/them/her/ or even argue with Vandals like Vedexent but simply repute them until they cry themselves to sleep
--- Marduk of Babylon
----
:Woe is me. Yes I am a Troll. And this big bad troll objected to unilateral, uncited additions and deltions of the original article (the edit history is a matter of public record, you are free to examine the whole mess here). I am so mean that I didn't even take the issues to third party RFC arbitration, in case it was me that was over-reacting? - oh wait, yes I did here]. And Marduck lost the RFC process, so they have ignored it and continued to Rant. I am so unfair that I didn't consult an administrator! Darn, I did that too  ! And the admin agreed that Marduck is in the wrong and that if they continue to act in this manner the pages should be locked. Oh, I know! I bet I'm such a coward that I use anonymous edits to hide my identity so no one can tell who I am, or verify any of my edits, or conversations, or actions. Darn, that doesn't work either; I do all my edits as me, and like any Wikipedian my actions and statements are logged as a matter of public record, and darn it, I've been providing them! Make up your own mind.
:I know! I am unfair to "Marduk". Yes. that must be it. I mean Marduk has worked long and hard with the people who objected to his edits to find a compromise and I have not acknowledged that ... well, actualy, no they havn't. I won't explain what they have been doing. I'll let "their" own actions in the edit history of Carthage, this article, and the Talk:Carthage speak on that. I know! Marduk has respected opposing cultural viewpoints, and when s/he doesn't "agree" with them, Marduk has added well cited counterpoints, using respected published works, lovingly footnoted and cited, and "big bad old Vexedent" won't even look at his sources! Hmm... no, that doesn't seem true either. I know! I have been using personal insults and threats against Marduk! Darn - no! Havn't been doing that either. But the begginings of threats and insults can be seen in Marduk's postings.
:I know. I'm acting alone? No one agrees that Marduk's postings violate Wikipedia standards, rules, and ettiquite. I'm being unreasonable, no one agress with me (and I probably have no friends!). Oh wait.. there is this, this, and this (and these: ,,). Guess that isn't true either...
:Remind me why I'm a Troll again? For the life of me, I can't see a reason other than the fact that I don't agree with Marduk, and have been trying to hold his/her writing to the same Wikipedia ettiquite, standards, and conventions that everyone uses, and when disagreements have being untractable, gone to neutral 3rd party RFC request. Oh my! Bad Vexedent! - Vedexent 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love this! : "He needs to only be ignored or simply reputed". By all means! Refute me! Show me published academic papers! Show me Wikirules! Show me standards of academic publishing! Refute me, and I'll shut up. It would make a nice change from your usual bluster. Btw, mind telling me which admins? I'd love to see how you phrased it on their talk pages - LOL. I'm guessing you're lying about "reporting" me as well, but maybe not if you can provide user talk page links (remember that whole "you can't lie because it is all public record" bit?) - Vedexent 11:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The amount of Trolls

message: The current "edit war" being propagated by the the anon editor is to insert material from a website, contraty to the copyright guidelines of Wikipedia. See here , here and Wikipedia:Copyright problems - Vedexent 20:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Be advised 

message: Page Carthage has been locked by a sysop because of the edit war spaked by anon/marduk's edits. On the Carthage talk page we're trying to reach some sort of community consensus and middle ground to get the page unlocked by the sysop again. It might be wise to do the same here.
A very simular edit war is happening here as well. It might be wise to reach some sort of resolution before the page gets locked up.
=== Issue ===
The issue seems to be: Is the text repeatedly added and removed, shown in this edit, be allowed as part of the article, and is it relevant to what the article is discussing?
=== Votes ===
*Disagree: It should be noted that being on one side of these edit wars, I am probably not impartial. While I am trying to not let my personal feelings influence my view, perhaps my opinion should be read with that in mind. I have two objections. First, while the ethnicity of Hannibal might be mentioned, a general discussion of the ethnic background of the Carthaginian people probably belongs in an article about the Carthaginians in general (ironically, that one is locked right now). Secondly, the text in this edit is at least partly here, which seems to violate the Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations policies. - Vedexent 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that Vedexent is doing the wrong thing, but he could have diffused this by either working in some of Marduks concerns (while rewriting the copy vio) or including an Wikipedia:Inline Citation as to why Marduk is wrong. This goes doubly for Marduk as well, the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance. *steps off of wiki podium* If you will both agree I would be glad to attempt to combine your versions. I think Marduk would like at least a mention of his theory, and the whole wiki could probably benefit from  at least a statement explaining the controversy (if in fact ther exists one outside of wikipedia). --Darkfred Talk to me 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I would like to stress it isn't my version. I have not been an editor on this page. My only concern has been a) That one person is trying to "steamroll" their version over the objections of many, without addressing their concerns, and much mroe recently, b) The copyvio issue. I don't have a version, I have objections to ideological steamrolling. If you are capable of working with marduk to incorporate their information into wikipedia, without  violoating wikipedia policies, and in the appropriate articles, that would be great. It would add the information to wikipedia properly, and end the edit war. - Vedexent 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with you, Darkfred: "the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance" is at the root of one of Wikipedia's systematic biases.  A confession of ignorance looks neutral but is in fact highly POV.Dejvid 12:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats true, but it depends on the contex, a claim that wikipedia is ignorant is not nearly as POV as a claim that the noone knows or that there is no contention on a topic. Either way even a claim of ignorance should be referenced. --Darkfred Talk to me 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Put like that, I can agree with you.Dejvid 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with your assement, this seems to be where consensus is heading. --Darkfred Talk to me 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before this page gets locked AS WELL 

message: *Disagree: It should be noted that being on one side of these edit wars, I am probably not impartial. While I am trying to not let my personal feelings influence my view, perhaps my opinion should be read with that in mind. I have two objections. First, while the ethnicity of Hannibal might be mentioned, a general discussion of the ethnic background of the Carthaginian people probably belongs in an article about the Carthaginians in general (ironically, that one is locked right now). Secondly, the text in this edit is at least partly here, which seems to violate the Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copyright violations policies. - Vedexent 20:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that Vedexent is doing the wrong thing, but he could have diffused this by either working in some of Marduks concerns (while rewriting the copy vio) or including an Wikipedia:Inline Citation as to why Marduk is wrong. This goes doubly for Marduk as well, the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance. *steps off of wiki podium* If you will both agree I would be glad to attempt to combine your versions. I think Marduk would like at least a mention of his theory, and the whole wiki could probably benefit from  at least a statement explaining the controversy (if in fact ther exists one outside of wikipedia). --Darkfred Talk to me 21:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I would like to stress it isn't my version. I have not been an editor on this page. My only concern has been a) That one person is trying to "steamroll" their version over the objections of many, without addressing their concerns, and much mroe recently, b) The copyvio issue. I don't have a version, I have objections to ideological steamrolling. If you are capable of working with marduk to incorporate their information into wikipedia, without  violoating wikipedia policies, and in the appropriate articles, that would be great. It would add the information to wikipedia properly, and end the edit war. - Vedexent 21:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with you, Darkfred: "the bar for including information by nature must be much higher than the bar for claiming ignorance" is at the root of one of Wikipedia's systematic biases.  A confession of ignorance looks neutral but is in fact highly POV.Dejvid 12:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats true, but it depends on the contex, a claim that wikipedia is ignorant is not nearly as POV as a claim that the noone knows or that there is no contention on a topic. Either way even a claim of ignorance should be referenced. --Darkfred Talk to me 14:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Put like that, I can agree with you.Dejvid 16:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with your assement, this seems to be where consensus is heading. --Darkfred Talk to me 03:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: This article is now well above the recommended size limit for Wikipedia articles.  A large part of the content has now been copied to and merged with the Second Punic War article (which is also now too long, although not as much as this article).  It needs to be condensed, but we should be careful, this should concentrate on the Second Punic War, and particularly the battles of Cannae and Zama, which ought to be adequately covered in their own articles. Mustafa Bevi 14:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First 50 kilobytes is less than quite a few other pages but if you really want to cut it than move start a Hannibal in popular culture page and move the film stuff there.Dejvid 19:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The size needs to be reduce, and the sections that need work are the Battle of Tresimene, Battle of Trebbia and Battle of Cannae, we've got perfectly good main articles about these battles, what we need here is a summary and a bit of information into the tactics used by Hannibal in each of these battles. After all, the page is on Hannibal, his life, his tactics, his victories, his fate etc. This article has gone overboard, now if you want to be featured, use Attila the Hun perhaps as an example or perhaps Claudies. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 04:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: But his battle tactics are one of the key aspects of his success and the Fabian tactic of avoiding that strength was the key to his defeat.  It must have a large place.  Size is no longer so impotant now we can edit by section.  Further you ignore my suggestion of moving the popular culture bit to a new section.Dejvid 10:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am talking about the Second Punic War section, not the Pop Culture section, as that still isn't huge and is more about him as opposed to the Carthaginian Army. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reduce size

message: This mixture of a film and documentary that was actually quite interesting appeared in Australia Free-To-Air Television on Friday. But I have absolutely no information (eg. year it was filmed, what nation it came from etc.) Has anyone else seen this? Then please add it to the Hannibal in Film section. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hannibal:Rome's Worst Nightmare

message: *For Mustafa Bevi 19:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes in favor

message: *Against for the reasons stated above. Dejvid 20:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes against:

message: Yes, I know that "condensation" is probably not the noun form of "condensing" when applied to words as opposed to liquid on a cooler surface.  However, I can't quite think of the word to use unless it's abridgement.
Anyway, I just wanted to verify that User:Mustafa Bevi is making sure that the text being taken out is, in fact, in another Wikipedia article.  My vote for shortening the article was based on the condition that text was being moved to other articles.
Second, I will comment that we didn't really reach consensus on this.  There were 6 votes for shortening and 4 votes against.  That's not consensus, that's tyranny of the majority.  I voted in favor of shortening but I feel a consensus should be something like 80% to 90% in favor of something and even then only if the minority seems to be unreasonable.\
--Richard 04:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus was not reached. If you are going to base your changes on a small majority it should be after the vote is no longer active (no-one has voted for a long time). I suggest further "condensation" should be halted until everyone has had their say is discussion. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensation 

message: Well-nested articles lose no information. After sub-section headline, a Main article: note directs the interested reader to a fuller treatment of that sub-section. In the article's opening lines some linked word should always give a clue to the broader treatment, the next article "up" in the nesting, for those who want Hannibal's general context, but fewer details. Carthage might be the cue, or Punic Wars. Simply deleting information because our word quota or attention span is exceeded is jejune. --Wetman 05:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nested articles

message: You wouldn't get too many films and stuff related to Hannibal, so I think this section needs to be broadened so that we can include literature, film and even video gaming (to some extent). Just need to find a proper title that would encompass all of this. Then our job is simply to expand that section. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hannibal in film and television

message: I have just uploaded an image[] which is perhaps the most famous representation of Hannibal, a bust apparently made during his lifetime (something which can also make it a crucial piece of evidence for the endless debate about his ethnicity.)  Anyway, here’s what this website had to say about it: 
“The bust of Hannibal dates to about the second Punic War. It was originally found at the ancient city-state of Capua in Italia. Capua was closely allied to the general, was no doubt intended to be the Carthaginian political representative in Italy, and possibly commissioned the bust in honor of him. It also corresponds well with Carthago-Phoenicians coins and may be said to be a true likeness of that general.”
I just don’t know exactly <<where>> in the article it would be best to put the image (probably the introduction?). If anyone has an idea, please feel free to paste the image there or post a suggestion here.
E.Cogoy 01:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it next to the intro, and moved the old intro image down to replace the Napoleon image that really shouldn't be on this article despite the crossing of the alps. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 02:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We could add some info (see above) related to bust image (in the lines below the image). For instence, we could state that it is original. It is also remarkable that the bust was found in Capua, and that it was done when Hannibal was still alive (according to the website cited before). I did not edit, because I want to know if you consider this info reliable. gala.martin  <Small>(what?)</Small> 12:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image: Bust of Hannibal 

message: The "film" chart as it stands is unhelpful in the extreme, as it allows no room for explanation, and includes far too many documentaries, which don't really count. I propose a separate "modern culture" section at the end, which can develop subtopics as appropriate; see Nero for an example of what I'm talking about. UnDeadGoat 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with opinions regarding the formatting of the section but on Sunday, 14th of May, 2006 in the UK, the BBC showed 2 very well made (and more importantly, historically accurate) programs on Hannibal. The first was a so-called "docu-drama" which I thought managed quite well to combine elements of typical movie adaptations (ie. a decent actor's portrayal of the man, lots of men in uniforms fighting and marching, special effects etc.) while still keeping quite true to the historical facts. This was followed by a traditionally styled documentory on Hannibal, taking clips of the battles, columns of men, war elephants etc. from the docu-drama. I'm not sure if it's already listed in the section though (it seemed as though made pretty recently) but I definatly think the "docu-drama" especially deserves a mention for people wanting to see a historically accurate visual portrayal of Hannibal's exploits (maybe to compare against what I'm sure will be a cringly inaccurate portrayal by Vin Deasil in the upcoming "Hannibal movie", similar maybe to the infamous Braveheart movie which happened to be on at the same time on another channel). Canderra 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, on further inspection, it appears the "docu-drama" I was referring to was in fact the already listed "Hannibal - Rome's Worst Nightmare". Still, it was more accurate than your typical historical TV film and I quite recommend it to Hannibal fans (Although, some of this sense of accuracy could have been due to me comparing it with Braveheart which I watched afterwards on a different channel). Canderra 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern culture" 

message: Masinissa, b. c.238, d. 149 or 148 BC, who later founded the nation of Numidia in North Africa west of Carthage. As a young Numidian tribal leader, he fought in Spain against the Romans during the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). In 206, however, he changed sides; he assisted Scipio Aficanus Major with the cavalry that defeated Carthage at Zama (202). Having been a leader of Hannibal's own cavalry and an expert on Hannibal's brilliant use of the cavalry, Scipio Aficanus made sure that he bought Masinissa with the promise of a future kingdom. With Roman support he established himself as the king of Numidia, which had previously been a collection of diverse, and seminomadic tribes. Rome offered no objections as he expanded his realm at Carthage's expense in later years. Masinissa turned many of the Numidians into peasant farmers. Upon his death,his sons divided his kingdom.
I can't see why we need such a huge paragraph on Masinissa's biography and Numidian history when a short description of his actions and 'betrayal' would be enough. What does it have to do with Hannibal Barca, anyway? Xemoi 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive info on an unrelated topic? 

message: All you have to do is look at Darfur to end the BS about "black" Africans (whatever that is) being below the Sahara.  Whenever Darfur or any 'accepted' black people in Africa are in the Northern regions, I never hear anything about a "sub-Saharan" at all!  When Somalia was in the news, that showed you yet another look of Africans - a look that works well with the north and mixing.  However, the blackness is still VERY present.
As far as Norhtwest Africa is concerned, all one has to do is look at the artifacts left and you will see clear black Africaness along with signs of mixing.  They clearly mixed more than Northeast Africa given their closeness to Europe.  When compared to ancient Egyptians, NW Africans are not as clear-cut African (the type that is undisputed - usually only one type that is pointed out with features that do not always resemble ancient blacks of African origins) as Egyptians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.91.23 (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those areas are sub-Saharan.  Overlay a sattelite image of Africa with a map of its nations.  Somolia is completely below the Sahara, and while part of Darfur does extend up into the desert, the conflict, and as such, pictures from the conflict have almost all taken place south of the desert belt.76.178.74.35 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: As I pointed out we can not outrule that Hannibal Barca and many other important people in the Mediterannean had Black African ancestors. So what? Especially members of the Barca family are likely to have Black African relatives before moving to Iberia and intermarrying with the local nobility there (Imilke, Hannibal's wife was from Southern Iberia).Wandalstouring 12:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, 64.174.151.22 (Talk) arguments, as referenced by Vedexent (African of the "purist type", "rings", etc.), mirror the arguments formely presented (check it!) by a Tom Bailey (Talk) in November 2005. This is strange... The Ogre 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out, his family had traditionally important ties to trade with Sub-Saharan Africa, so Black African ancestors are not impossible and I think I remember reading about sceletons with negroid features found in graves decorated with highly crafted artworks, so possibly even Punicnobility had some links to Africa, as well as to Sicilian Greece. This is not much to wonder about, for only the tolls from the cross-Sahara trade brought ~400 silver talents annualy (a budget, enough to finance a considerable military power by itself). But for we do not know for sure the Barca family did have intermarriage with Black Africans besides establishing the trade, it is only speculation. We can state that his ancestors among the Barca family had played a signifanct role in establishing important ties across the Sahara. Rings are nothing specifically Black African, see Plautus' comedy Poenulus about a Punic. The mentioned French source from 1870 is very likely racist, a thread that continues a long time into the last century in many works on Carthage. In British literature for some time the highest praise was to neglect their semitic origins. Today their Cypriot ancestry is often forgotten. Wandalstouring 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure thing. You know that Wikipedia is about verifiability, right? And published works? And seious academic papers and not websites or personal interpretations of bad photos of ancient weathered coins? Both sides of this debate need to show valid references for their arguments, or go home. If both sides have credible references then perhaps both sides of the argument with their supporting references can be included in the article, and let the reader make up their own mind. But your squabbling is starting to sound like a playground - Vedexent (talk) - 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: He belongs to some immigrants, the Phoenicians, who are relatives of the Hebrews. Yes there are some finfings with sub-saharan features of the skeletons from North Africa during this period. No proof that someone of Carthage's aristocracy was descended from them, nor that any Punic was descended from them. wikipedia is no source and the map there is highly doubtful. Produce scientific works on the topic or keep quiet. Wandalstouring 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As black as the US president(he is likely to be someone's son). Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe the Zidonians and the Phoenicians were the same peoole; They settled up around modern-day Lebanon (Sidon and Tyre).  Like everyone else living around the Mediterranean, they would have had darker skin than Northern Europeans, but lighter skin than Sub-Saharan Africans.  Most likely they would have looked similar to the Arabs, Berbers and Lower Egyptians (as opposed to the peoples from the Northern coast).76.178.74.35 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is coinage with the portrait of his father here and here. And, of course, there's also the marble bust. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Pittard says that the skulls were dolichocepahlic, a trait shared by both African and Semitic races (and to a lesser extent, some caucasian peoples).  In addition, both of those sources are rather old (I think at least 70 years).  The authors did not have access to DNA technology things like DNA, which allow us to make determinations based on something rather more reliable than the shape of someone's face (or the reconstruction of a nose without the aid of a computer based on 2,000 year old remains).  They have found that modern North Africans, particularly Egyptians (likely due to the quanitity of preserved remains to check against), share a great genetic similarity to their ancient counterparts.  There are also projects like National Geographic's Genographic Project, which have  traced the migration of genetic markers.  DNA evidence shows that North Africans migrated from and have a common geneology with the Middle East.76.178.74.35 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pittard's job is very outdated, as above comment points out, and dates from times when Phrenology was still accepted. Research on races has changed a *lot* since 1929, so we should use more modern research. If Pittard's work is still valid, then there must be modern research using it as basis. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out a simple fact, Hannibal was the son of an Iberian princess, so in any case at most he was half black.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, this is not accurate; I have never seen any reliable source suggesting the Hamilcar took an Iberian wife (or any information about her, for that matter), and he did not campaign in Spain until ten years after Hannibal was born.98.145.6.72 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darfur 

message: Some morons today are claiming that Hannibal was a negroid racial type, based purely on the idea that he was born and raised on the continent of Africa. this espite the overwhelming evidence that proves beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that he was clearly caucasoid. the same troublemakers are also claiming that other famous peoples such as Cleopatra, as well as entire peoples such as the Ancient Egyptians, Libyans and Berbers were not as they appear in all the authentic artwork, and written descriptions, but were part of some mythical ancient black civilization, For shame people, for shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
:As I pointed out we can not outrule that Hannibal Barca and many other important people in the Mediterannean had Black African ancestors. So what? Especially members of the Barca family are likely to have Black African relatives before moving to Iberia and intermarrying with the local nobility there (Imilke, Hannibal's wife was from Southern Iberia).Wandalstouring 12:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, 64.174.151.22 (Talk) arguments, as referenced by Vedexent (African of the "purist type", "rings", etc.), mirror the arguments formely presented (check it!) by a Tom Bailey (Talk) in November 2005. This is strange... The Ogre 17:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out, his family had traditionally important ties to trade with Sub-Saharan Africa, so Black African ancestors are not impossible and I think I remember reading about sceletons with negroid features found in graves decorated with highly crafted artworks, so possibly even Punicnobility had some links to Africa, as well as to Sicilian Greece. This is not much to wonder about, for only the tolls from the cross-Sahara trade brought ~400 silver talents annualy (a budget, enough to finance a considerable military power by itself). But for we do not know for sure the Barca family did have intermarriage with Black Africans besides establishing the trade, it is only speculation. We can state that his ancestors among the Barca family had played a signifanct role in establishing important ties across the Sahara. Rings are nothing specifically Black African, see Plautus' comedy Poenulus about a Punic. The mentioned French source from 1870 is very likely racist, a thread that continues a long time into the last century in many works on Carthage. In British literature for some time the highest praise was to neglect their semitic origins. Today their Cypriot ancestry is often forgotten. Wandalstouring 18:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure thing. You know that Wikipedia is about verifiability, right? And published works? And seious academic papers and not websites or personal interpretations of bad photos of ancient weathered coins? Both sides of this debate need to show valid references for their arguments, or go home. If both sides have credible references then perhaps both sides of the argument with their supporting references can be included in the article, and let the reader make up their own mind. But your squabbling is starting to sound like a playground - Vedexent (talk) - 23:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: He belongs to some immigrants, the Phoenicians, who are relatives of the Hebrews. Yes there are some finfings with sub-saharan features of the skeletons from North Africa during this period. No proof that someone of Carthage's aristocracy was descended from them, nor that any Punic was descended from them. wikipedia is no source and the map there is highly doubtful. Produce scientific works on the topic or keep quiet. Wandalstouring 20:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Anthropologists have studied skeletons from the Carthaginian cemeteries . Professor Eugene Pittard, then at the University of Geneva, reported that: "Other bones discovered in Punic Carthage, and housed in the Lavigerie Museum, come from personages found in special sarcophagi and probably belonging to the Carthaginian elite. Almost all the skulls are dolichocephalic ." Futhermore, the sarcophagus of the highly venerated Priestess of Tanit , "the most ornate" and "the most artistic yet found," is also housed in the Lavigerie Museum. Pittard says " The woman buried there had Negro features. She belonged to the African race !" Professor Stephane Gsell was the author of the voluminous Histoire Ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord. Also based on anthropological studies conducted on Carthaginian skeletons, he declared that: " The so called Semitic type, characterised by the long, perfectly oval face, the thin aquiline nose and the lengthened cranium, enlarged over the nape of the neck has not [yet] been found in CarthageMahmud II 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As black as the US president(he is likely to be someone's son). Wandalstouring (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe the Zidonians and the Phoenicians were the same peoole; They settled up around modern-day Lebanon (Sidon and Tyre).  Like everyone else living around the Mediterranean, they would have had darker skin than Northern Europeans, but lighter skin than Sub-Saharan Africans.  Most likely they would have looked similar to the Arabs, Berbers and Lower Egyptians (as opposed to the peoples from the Northern coast).76.178.74.35 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is coinage with the portrait of his father here and here. And, of course, there's also the marble bust. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Pittard says that the skulls were dolichocepahlic, a trait shared by both African and Semitic races (and to a lesser extent, some caucasian peoples).  In addition, both of those sources are rather old (I think at least 70 years).  The authors did not have access to DNA technology things like DNA, which allow us to make determinations based on something rather more reliable than the shape of someone's face (or the reconstruction of a nose without the aid of a computer based on 2,000 year old remains).  They have found that modern North Africans, particularly Egyptians (likely due to the quanitity of preserved remains to check against), share a great genetic similarity to their ancient counterparts.  There are also projects like National Geographic's Genographic Project, which have  traced the migration of genetic markers.  DNA evidence shows that North Africans migrated from and have a common geneology with the Middle East.76.178.74.35 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pittard's job is very outdated, as above comment points out, and dates from times when Phrenology was still accepted. Research on races has changed a *lot* since 1929, so we should use more modern research. If Pittard's work is still valid, then there must be modern research using it as basis. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out a simple fact, Hannibal was the son of an Iberian princess, so in any case at most he was half black.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryaman13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, this is not accurate; I have never seen any reliable source suggesting the Hamilcar took an Iberian wife (or any information about her, for that matter), and he did not campaign in Spain until ten years after Hannibal was born.98.145.6.72 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Race controversey