Talk:Carthage

message: There appears to be an edit war over how to represent years in this article. Can we stop that please. As I understand it, the use of BCE/CE is more neutral as it doesn't refer to a particular religious figure, so favouring that as per WP:NPOV. Happy to favour the other if there's a good reason, but let's decide and then stop warring over it. Donama (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparing the proportion of articles that are BC to those that have BCE on wikpedia with the proportion of books on the classical era suggest that BCE style is underrepresented and this especially true of the main articles such as this.  Wikipedia should reflect standard academic usage and hence I agree with Donama.Dejvid (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer CE and BCE myself but just wanted to point out that per WP:ERA, Wikipedia has no preference: "AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style." I'm all in favor of supporting WP:CONSENSUS for CE and BCE in this article for the reasons given by the two preceding editors. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC/AD vs BCE/CE for dates 

message: On a related note, this edit established the page's usage as American English. Kindly maintain it consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 01:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:ENGVAR]]

message: The article was mixing up the municipality, a suburb with population 20,000 established 1919 with the archaeological site (excavated since 1833) and with the ancient history of the city. I made a separate article for the municipality now, Carthage (municipality). There should be a separate page on Roman Carthage and on Carthage (archaeological site). This page should avoid being a WP:CFORK of History of Carthage. Perhaps it will be best to turn this into the article on the archaeological site (observe the well-developed French article, :fr:Site archéologique de Carthage. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, and I was going to suggest something similar. Whatever happens, Carthage should be the base and parent article which should cover what a general reader would expect to find if doing a search for Carthage, which would be an overview of Carthage and its empire with some mention of the Punic Wars. From the main Carthage article, child articles would be split out per WP:Summary style for more detailed coverage, such as History of Carthage, allowing more depth than the main article. The modern settlement has little relation to the topic, except as a curious footnote which could be dealt with as a single sentence in the main article, so it seems fully appropriate that it is split off. The common name for Carthage (archaeological site) is Archaeological Site of Carthage, and that is a styling used on Wikipedia (Archaeological site of Cabeço do Vouga) so I think it should be named that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We only have 2 paras currently on the excavations, which are about the right length for a summary in the main article. There is as yet nothing to split off. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article scope

message: Within the "Topography" section is a quote from Fitzgerald's translation of the Aeneid, by Virgil. Yet it appears in iambic pentameter, while Virgil used dactylic hexameter. Perhaps another translation, such as the one by Robert Fagles, is more appropriate?Princetoniac (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poetic Meter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carthage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207015451/http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24411&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer to http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24411&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Topography" it is stated:
"The "first urban nucleus" dating to the seventh century, in area about ten hectares (or four acres),...."
This can't be right. 1 hectare equals +/- 2.5 acres.
Therefore it should be either "ten hectares (or twenty-five acres)" or "ten acres (or four hectares)" whichever is the right pair of values.
Kvrijt (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Carlstak (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty area conversion. 

message: Throughout these articles, the name "Punic" is used for the people and language of Carthage. That gives a misleading impression of who and what they were. "Punic" (derived from Greek) was the Roman name for both the people and their language. It was not the name used by the Carthaginians themselves. which was kn'ni, that is Canaanite. Their language was that of their original homeland, Canaan, which encompassed the whole of the Levant between Asia Minor and Egypt,both the northern half, which the Greeks called Phoenicia, and the Southern half which they called Palestine. The Roman names were derived from the Greek. The natives and their neighbours called it kn'n (Canaan) and had done so since at least the fifteenth century BCE. Their language was essentially the same as the one we call Hebrew and was written in the same alphabetical script from which both the Greek and Latin alphabets are derived. Giving primacy to the Roman name "Punic" in an articles about ancient Carthage rather obscures its history.82.13.54.200 (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but WE don't call them Canaanites. We call the Phoenecians, Carthagians or Punic. 37.248.178.100 (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The use of "Punic" as the name of the people and language of Carthage. 

message: As some may know, whether or not the Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice is some of the most debated of subjects in the academy on ancient history. Thus, I was surprised that some very important recent research from 2013, which seems to pull the debate in favor of their practicing it, isn't mentioned in the article yet. They should be added. Here's the papers;
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cemetery-or-sacrifice-infant-burials-at-the-carthage-tophet/EA2F96A8FD7229800391B766C95ECBE1
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/cemetery-or-sacrifice-infant-burials-at-the-carthage-tophet/DAC7C386CD20F5C280C9DB41E5184A2E
Some coverage in the media;
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/21/carthaginians-sacrificed-own-children-study
64.229.115.87 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent research on Carthaginian child sacrifice 

message: "Cutting the skin into strips, she laid out her claim and founded an empire that would become, through the Punic Wars, the only existential threat to Rome until the coming of the Vandals several centuries later."
This statement is not very precise and also not correct as to why the Vandals were first new existential threat to Rome. Assuming that the author defines 'existential threat' as threat to the existence of the city of Rome itself, then several other invading tribe coalitions that threatened to sack (for instance the Huns) or effectively sacked the city (such as the Visigoths) should be named first. There is also some discussion about how severe this sacking was and no big burning of the city occured. The threat to Rome came - next to the internal struggles of the (Western) Empire as well as the decreasing importance from the new tribal coalitions that were more powerful and harder to deal with then the single Barbarian tribes of e.g. the early principate.
A better phrase would be therefore ".. the only existential threat to Rome until the Migration Period and the appearance of larger barbarian tribes at Rome's boarders."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.211.135 (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existential Threat by the Vandals 

message: In the "Archaeological site" section of this article, I edited the wikilink to point to Salammbô, not Salammbô (Reyer). However, I noticed that this article claims that Flaubert's Salammbô was published in 1858, while the article on Salammbô gives the date of publication as 1862. There is no source on Carthage for the claim about Flaubert. Looks like there is a need for some fixin'. Carhutt (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Flaubert claim and date 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: GDP : 183.4 million US $
GDP per capita: 11518 $
GDP by sector:
6% agriculture 
94% services
Tourism provide 22% of the city gdp 197.15.56.211 (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this information? See WP:SOURCES. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: The intro of this article states Carthage "was taken by the Crusaders with its inhabitants massacred during the Eighth Crusade."  When you follow the link to the article on the Eighth Crusade, it states, "The Crusade did not see any significant fighting as King Louis died of dysentery shortly after arriving on the shores of Tunisia." Montemanm1 (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eighth Crusade contradiction?