Talk:Punic religion

message: Is Melqart really compared with Herakles (aka Hercules)?  Seems like he would be closer to Hades, but I'm no expert.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for some reason he was generally identified with Heracles in the Hellenistic world. And he was not a god of death and hell.--Anonymous44 (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Melqart

message: What is the point of this interminable reading list? Paul B 14:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché.  I forgot it was there.  The story behind the list is too long and not quite worth explaining.  It's an artifact of an edit war over sources.  I'm going to delete it and then we should probably start over.  Thanks for drawing my attention to it. --Richard 05:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.   Misarxist (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I suggest that we split off the issue of alleged child sacrifice into its own article because:
1. It is an important issue in its own right.
2. It is unbalancing the article on religion in Carthage.
3. It may be difficult to avoid the section in the main Carthage article being more than just a summary in this article. PatGallacher (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that at the moment it's getting a bit ridiculous but the problem is more the rest of the article needs expanding. It's always going to have a large proportion on child-sacrifice simply because there a lot of material devoted to that debate. Articles should only be split if they become too long. Misarxist (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: The tone of several sections of this article reads in the persuasive rather than the expository. We've no need to be convince readers of something to be taken as fact. Opinions or recent scholarly research should be clearly described as such.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.147.254 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate tone 

message: I was hoping to read an article on what the Carthaginian religion was like, but this unfortunately is 90% 'did the Carthaginians engage in child sacrifice?' I mean, that should be *part* of such an article, but there is basically no information on any other aspect of their religion in this article (aside from a brief mention of two gods and the fact that Carthage also engaged in animal sacrifice). If that is all the available information, that at least should be stated explicitly, but somehow I doubt that is correct.
It seems clear to me that there should be an article on 'child sacrifice in Carthage', because clearly there is some scholarly debate about it and people are very interested in the idea. But there also should be a less obsessive version of this article, stating what is known about the religion in broader strokes. 96.246.248.112 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not sure, however, if this is because of some archaeological "fetish" for the unveiling of evidence of the controversial, or if there really is an imbalance in the evidence, but the number of mentions of child sacrifice, and the extremely long description on this page seem wildly inappropriate for the importance of the information. This article needs a major rewrite. It's a fascinating culture and a very important link in the history of global religions. 2001:569:790B:600:D4BC:2CBF:9D89:F639 (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabeled Article 

message: Someone inserted random references to The Elder Scrolls into the article. I have removed them. There are no Phoenician gods named Mephalla, Boethia, or Azura that I could find in my research, and Μποέτια, the supposed Greek name of Boethiah, does not transliterate to anything even close to the word Boethiah. 47.185.130.89 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The tophets and child sacrifice is now handled in some detail at Tophet#Carthage and the western Mediterranean. Should we reduce its size here somewhat?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to write a note to the same effect. Yes, I think Tophet can be the main article for the whole issue. The primary source quotes can go, for sure. Furius (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken a first stab at shortening it. It seems like a prominent enough issue to maintain its own section though, right? All the RS articles on Punic/Phoenician religion seem to have a special section on tophets.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right that it is a central issue. Regardless of what exactly happened in them, the tophets were clearly a central part of Punic religion. Furius (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut down child sacrifice section?