Talk:Carthage/Archive 1

message: I came to this article looking for a description of the popular phrase "sack of Carthage". I've managed to understand, from other sources, that this happened in 146 BC. Is this accurate? Should this be put in the article to help the casual reader/researcher? Kevininspace 14 Nov 2005
:If you can cite a source, you should add it. Be sure to add the citation, though. Throbblefoot 03:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: sack of Carthage

message: In the first section, Hanno is said to have sailed down to Sierra Leone, while the third section says he may have passed the Cape of Good Hope. Which one is correct?
Scipio Africanus Minor??
It was Scipio Aemilianus who destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War, not Scipio Africanus Minor who had died in 182 BC--Mike Spalding 04:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherence 

message: I don't know much about Carthage and I frankly am not that much interested in it, prefering the Etruscans and the Greeks (who were both having more peaceful relations with Carthage than we normally realise) , but it seemed totally insane to have an article on Carthaginians without any mention of the nature of their commerce and the image and presence they had in antiquity as traders.  All the existing sections portrayed them as warriors and baby-killers. Yes, yes, the punic wars are crucial historical events, but they were based on commercial rivalries. The commerce section should be much bigger.  In fact there could be two or three:  One for their maritime commerce, one for their land based trade routes in North Africa, etc etc.  I placed the "general" sections before the chronological ones because having them at the bottom, as was the case previously, made it look as if they dealt with the Roman Carthage, which was a radically different place!
--AlainV 02:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fathers of international commerce

message: I removed the fact that Hanno the Navigator reached Cape of Good Hope. That doesn't seem plausible, and isn't mentioned in the Hanno the navigator article. Thue | talk 21:12, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hanno the Navigator]] and [[Cape of Good Hope]]

message: Recently an anonymous IP address added the following:
:Carthage's government was originally a despotist monarchy, but after several dynasties the government turned into a republic. The highest rank was the tyrant, a word probably originating from the Phoenecian capital, Tyre, from which Carthage came, a rank much like that of the Consul, or less similar to the rank of President. The tyrant was elected from the Council of Elders, a legislature much like that of Rome's Senate. The Council of Elders were elected from the Carthaginian populace, and they were gifted much power, also the right to elect the Tyrant. The Tyrant would usually be a succesful military leader, however if accused of inspiring revolt to become king, would be crucified (The Carthaginians practiced crucifiction on many of its criminals, unsuccesful generals and rebels). They could also deny the proclomations of a tyrant, the first initial form of veto.
I'm not a Carthaginian expert, but the introduction of an obviously spurious folk etymology for tyrant -- that's a Greek word, not derived from Tyre, and if it's used in reference to a Carthaginian office, I'm sure its a translation, not an actual Phonician word -- makes me suspect the whole thing.  Hopefully more knoweldgeable ppl than I can judge how much of this is correct and how much is BS. --Jfruh 21:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt I qualify as an expert either, but I'd say you made the right call. The passage is somewhat incoherent and littered with misspellings on top of the dubiousness of its content. Greek τυραννος was originally borrowed from a non-Greek language. There are competing candidates, but I've never seen it linked to the name of Tyre. Moreover, though the Greek term lacked the obligatory negative sense of the modern “tyrant,” it always as far as I know carried the sense of a ruler whose authority was both unrestrained and an interruption to the normal order, so this Anonymous' description of the office makes no sense. The worst thing about the passage, though, is that it was written over good, solid information -- including the actual Phoenician word ŠPṬ (שפט). --Americist 23:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's nonsense. Tyrant was a Greek term roughly meaning "autocrat", someone given (or assuming) complete power for a period of time, without the perjorative connotation attached to "dictator" today. A tyrant could be voted in, or out, at need. (Or killed, at need...)  Trekphiler 18:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent anonymous changes 

message: I have made some minor changes, as far as my knowledge goes of Carthage and it's history. As to the foundation in 814 BC I have left that as there is no definite knowledge of when and how the city was founded. The Roman destruction of the city was quite thorough. Also other Punic cities in the west have changed very much under the constructions of the Romans.
I notice there is a lot of myth taken for historical truth: remember always that the Roman and Greek writers are of later times and are not very much interested in telling the truth about the Carthaginians. Only archaeological research can prove what was true or not, and even that is very difficult. Sardinia84.84.220.60 13:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes 

message: This article does not adequately describe the role Carthage played within the Phoenician nation. For instance, Tyre and Phoenicia went into decline around the middle of the seventh century B.C after incurring the hostility of Assyria, Carthage took control of the colonies and trade for herself.  From this point onwards this article implies that in that transition Carthage became a distinct nation comprised of previously Phoenecian city-states.  So - when this article discusses the expansion of Carthaginian trade, wouldn't it be more accurate to describe it as the expansion of the Phoenician trade?  This is assuming you believe that Phoenicia describes a political body as opposed to the geographic entity on the Levant.
Nudas veritas 04:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you want to emphasise that Carthage took control of an already-extant Phoenician trade network in the Western Mediterranean, of which they were themselves a part, I think that would be fine.  I'm not sure what you mean by "believe that Phoenicia describes a political body", though.  The Phoenicians were a cultural grouping that started in Phoenicia and planted colonies throughout the Mediterranean—much like the ancient Greeks, though ultimately less successfully.  Colonies certainly retained strong cultural ties to their mother cities, and the oldest and greatest cities retained pre-eminence until they declined and were displaced by Carthage.  But Phoenician settlement throughout the Mediterranean basin wasn't ever politically united (until Carthage united the West).  As far as I'm aware, that's what the historical and archaeological record says.  Binabik80 23:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canaan 

message: Given the fame of Carthage as a seafaring power, I'm surprised so little attention is paid her navy. For instance, she pioneered the co-operation of triremes, groups of 4...  Trekphiler 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Carthaginian navy

message: It is obvious that this article is highly questionable, especially as it has little to no inline citations and footnotes. 
I would call on interested Wikipedians to help out in this regard, so that opposing views can be cited, and paired off as opposing views, viewpoints balanced, and unsubstatiated points removed.
In short, I think refernecing and citing this article, along with some good, neutral, professional, editing could really help this article out. - 21:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for citations and references 

message: As most historical sources are non-Punic, should there not be a section detailing the sources, and their possible biases? - Vedexent 22:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Sources? 

message: # I did not "insert text" and sign what you put in with my name. It is convention to put responses to in the same section, indenting it appropriately to indicate a seperate person. Like this.
"This is a comment" - A
:"This is a response" - B
The fact that you didn't sign your commnets and you don't know this indicates to me that you are almost totally new to Wikipedia and how things are done here.
As for your edits...
# You have REPEATEDLY taken out points that don't agree with your point-of-view. You have taken out points, and you have NOT provided counter arguments in the text
# I highlighted the sections that were in dispute, put in tags to prompt people to put in citations for disputed points, and called for people to do so. You erased all that. I guess no one but you is allowed to have viewpoints or respond?
# You have repeatedly taken out the disambiguation link which is common, if not policy to have.
# You have totally removed other culture's views of Carthage. You have not presented them, and then said they were wrong, because of this-and-that fact. You have just taken them out unilaterally, allowing no other cultures input. Therefore.
  	 
# You have at no time, despite being asked provided your own histortical sources. Therefore

# I am not a "Graco-Roman Apologist". I never wrote the original article'. I don't know if it is correct, or not. What I object to is you totally re-writing the article and providing not one supporting source. What I object to is someone with an apparent ideological/historical axe to grind, who seems incapable of citing historical sources to support their position. If you could, it wouldn't be a big deal. So - put up, or shut up, as they say.
# I am officially calling for sources, and I am officially contesting the viewpoint of the article. If you have sources, show them, and I will gladly take the sources tag off. If you can show the multiple historical sources, what other culture's views are/were about Carthage, what they say, and what their biases are, I will gladly take off the neutrality template. In other words, if you can back up what you claim, and do so in a neutral manner, I will be happy to take the tags back off.
# You completely removed the section on the Roman colonization of the site well after the destruction of Carthage following the Third punic war. What was that about revionist history?
# IF YOU UNILATERALLY REMOVE THE TAGS AND DO NOTHING ELSE I WILL CALL FOR ADMINISTRATOR ARBITRATION OF THIS MATTER. I don't care if Carthage sacrificed babies or not - what I DO care about is people making massive, apparently ideologically based, re-writes of articles when they are not willing to back up their "ideology" with sources. If you can provide sources, and balanced veiwpoints, I will be qute content to let the article stand. 
# Please pay close attention to WP:NPOV and WP:V sections of the Wikipedia writing guidelines. - Vedexent 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling for arbitration 

message: I've asked an admin to informally look at the sitatuion, without bringing the Arbitration commitee into it yet. - Vedexent 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contacted Administrator 

message: As per the Administrator's advice, I've listed this talk page, and the issues on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography for other people to have input into the issue. Perhaps some sort of wikipedia community consensus can be reached as to how culturally biases anecdotes, stories, and views can be incorporated into the article, or alternativly whether they should be left out entirely. - Vedexent 01:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never said that Carthaginians enjoyed killing children. It says only that it's recorded by mr X, Y and Z that they did so. We're not interested in proving whether this allegation is true or not, we're only interested in mentioning that it exists in records. As editors, we're not in position of making original research and drawing conclusions. Miskin 03:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography 

message: The anon is ignoring the discussion and procedure, and is just reverting to their version. Is it possible or desirable to get a lock on the page? I know that since they are anon it is tricky to ban them, since they don't have the "courage of their convictions" enough to use an account. - Vedexent 10:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Firstly, I hope that you are not actually referring to individuals here as lunatics, or as 'liars' for citing well-established beliefs - that is blatant WP:NPA no matter how you cut it.
Secondly, nn website does not really qualify as source; additionally, same site provides argument "for" child sacrifice (as well as an individual's argument agianst) You can't use your sources selectively - doing so is blatant POV.
Thirdly, Reverting unacredited disputed anonymous edits which remove cited agreed upon material is not vandalism. What you are doing, well intentioned though it may be, is.
Finally, You obviously paid zero to no heed to the short, signed comments that were left for your benefit.
As I mentioned before, if you want to be taken seriously, play nice - and lengthy diatribes which in essence say little to nothing don't count as playing nice. Bridesmill 20:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firstly

message: I propose that we stop debating it. We just keep reverting it and/or have admins block the IPs when they violate the "3 revert rule". Eventually "Marduk" will get tired and go away. If not, hey, that is why they invented monitoring bots. - Vedexent 00:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: End the argument

message: Please read WP:3RR - you are way beyond violating that, and demonstrate a total disregard for either wiki etiquette or process. Hiding as an anon while using the name of a god in your commentary is not exactly good faith either. Your behavior will result in you being blocked.Bridesmill 05:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blank

message: Please read this part of the section
""For the purposes of counting reverts, these are excluded:
::*self-reverts 
::*correction of simple vandalism"
Reverting vandalisim done by trolls such as you is clearly not prohibited and thank god. I will continue to repute your Vandalisim and slander of knowledge, I suggest you re-read the rules you have some more to learn. Again I warn you of Your Actions its for your own benfit
--Marduk of Babylon
:I suppose this declaration proves that you are a new editor who needs to go through the WP:POLICIES before edit-warring. Alternatively, you can keep reverting under this illusion and see what will happen. Miskin 00:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP

message: It went to artibration. We consulted one of the admins. You are free to take the issue to the "arbitration commitee" if you disagree. If you continue to add massive, uncited rewrites, and unilaterially remove material, you will continue to be reverted. The admininstrator I've been talking about has also said that the pages will be locked for a few weeks (at least).
You can go to the  Wikipedia arbitartion commitee, but given that:
# You chose not to follow any of the advice given to you so that your edits and viewpoints could be incorporated into the Wiki article without violating any of the guidelines. Instead you chose to "steamroll" over everyone, and be abrasive and nasty,
# You clearly have some large misconceptions about how Wikipedia works (see your ignorance and loud complaints about how the talk page worked!), and have made no attempt to learn either the rules (except when it suits you). Heck - you claim your reverts are the "correction of simple vandalism". Did you even read the definition of Vandalism? If so, great. How about WP:NPOV? How about WP:Cite? 
I doubt very much that the arbitration commitee would be impressed by your case. As an anology, if you swear at the Baliff, insult the judge, kick all the lawyers in the room, and pee in the witness stand, is it likely that your case will go well?
Also, be advised that your last statement verges on threat. Not quite a threat, but I would still be careful if I were you. Threatening people directly is one of those things that gets the time, place and IP address of the offender sent to their ISP's (AOL in your case) abuse department.
The thing is, if you really want a more balanced view of Carthage, and are willing to work with people, your concerns can be addressed. I will warn you right up front that 
# Because other cultures did write about Carthage, it is valid to mention.
# Because allegations of human sacrifice were made by other cultures, it is a valid point to mention in the article. The allegation is perhaps unfair, we have already stated that it may very well be blood libel, in which case the opposing archelogical evidence that you seem so adamant exists should be mentioned in the Bibliography and cited a la WP:Cite and WP:Cite.php.
In other words, according to the rules of Wikipedia, and academic research and presentation in general, those "points" (not facts, they are disputed, but points) should be mentioned. Thus, your attempts to remove them are vandalism, and will not be allowed to stand.
As a side note, I have no idea why you keep removing the disambugation link! That has nothing to do with Carthage and just an internal Wikipedia navigations tool. It's rather like deciding you don't like the number 42 and go around ripping out street signs that have that number. Bizzare.  - Vedexent 10:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marduk, face it, you lost 

message: This is what we mean by citations. You don't seem to grasp that. We don't need to hear argument, we don't need to hear that you "read once in a magazine, that...", we don't need your own personal theories.
we need actual, published, academic works as citations. Web sites don't typically count. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
A great deal of this argument goes away once you can provice academic sources for your edits. 
Not all of them, as you seem to fail to grasp that historically common views are valid to mention, even if only to refute them by showing how more recent research has proved it wrong. This is the reason that (possibly unfair) allegations by Roman and Greek historians are valid to mention in the article.
This is as about as simple as I can make this. If you can't, or won't, grasp this, and if you unwilling to work with people here, then we really don't have much alternative than to keep reverting your edits. - Vedexent 12:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marduk, read [[WP:Cite]] 

message: Does anyone know of some good sources for the archeology of Carthage, and Carthaginian cities? I think including that aspect could really improve the article - especially the contrast with the somewhat biased histoical accounts we have - Vedexent 13:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carthaginian Archeology 

message: Vedexent its time for you to calm down, if you haven't noticed your making an ass of yourself. As much as I would really love to continue this raving with you in which you seem to only be screaming at the top of your lungs is just pointless. You seem to be dodging the fact that I have provided sources,Citation, and clear Reason, you have shown nothing but ranting and wining, making notes and complaints handed to yourself which I think is silly and humor's to say the least if not a bit strange. Its time for you to re-read the rules I would suggest the section of "Making Major Deletions".
Its time for you to also get over yourself you sound like some worked up high school girl who just had her period, relax and calm down only then well I see that you have enough Reason and understanding to be argued with until then your nothing but a smart mouthed raving child. I could do without the personal attacks as iam sure you can as well.
You have yet to cite why you are making major deletions other then one tid bit about this or "Your Dissatisfaction" with the work, well that's to bad this isn't about you, again get over yourself. Your desperate plea to undermine knowledge and information about other non western cultures is sickening which is why I think people who have historical information should always challenge others and there radical outbursts and remarks.
We should just put in every single last myth and fabrication because its there? Then would you join me in the Roman and Greek article please, ive always wanted to inquire about the myth told by let me remind you "Other cultures" that the Romans enjoyed roasted babies and what about the one where there favored to be elected among "There" Senate was animals in this instance a Horse as you may well know. Should I also go on about Greeks being produced as a population with vile and sickining orgy's of 7-year old children? Should I input that in as well! Hell according to you its information that's there so why not input it its worth doing so
Can anyone give me a source to this bile as well as I think it will be helpful when I get around to the Roman Article and the Greeks as well, of course like vedexent has said "its worth putting up".
But Iam beyond that, iam also far more "Level Headed" then the like here, iam not going to stray from Facts and real information into Pesudo-History and Myths. And I will continue to fight your vandalism and Slander against Carthage, I think we should do so until you cry yourself to sleep or begin to use "Reason"
Thank you
--Marduk Of Babylon
:Thank you for that. It rather neatly sums up your character. Now let the nice people vote on consensus below, as per the lock template advice. Neither you or I gets final say on how the page will be. - Vedexent 14:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaints

message: Admins thank you for hearing my plea just now, you have acted in good time and in good faith, again it is this reason Wikipedia will always remain as the center for Human knowledge not Pedu myths and fabrications, you have restored Facts and Level headed Reason within this debate.
Now if the poster Vedexent would please stop making personal threats and attacks on me I would be happy to answer his "Complaints" if he wills please also let him feel free to debate this matter with me, I have an open ear and I will practice patience 
Thank you
--Marduk Of Babylon
:LOL - I rather thought you would conviently not read the "(Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version.)" part of the template. You got lucky in timing. Nothing more. - Vedexent 14:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, can you quote some of provide links to those "personal threats"? Threatening people is serious here in Wikipedia. I'm curious if you can provide links to some of those threats? - Vedexent 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, let any who care to read the edit log, and your statements on this talk page, judge for themselves, from your own words, whether or not you have and open ear and practice patience. :D - Vedexent 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you Admins

message: Whee... ok, the edit war pissed off a Sysop enough to lock it. Additionally, Marduck managed to revert just prior to the lock. The only way the lock is coming off is if there is a consensus built up in the talk page as to how the page should read. Marduk seems insistent on that particular version - to the point of simply cut-and-pasting the same version over and over into the page. So - let us start building consensus.
=== Question ===
The question is, should Marduk's version be allowed to stand verbatim, as s/he seems unwilling to allow any other versions.
:Note: if you think this isn't the issue at hand, and that the primary question should be something different, please make a comment: to that effect. Perhaps we should be voting on something else. I don't want to "stuff the ballet box" by "loading the question".
=== Votes ===
*Disagree: I don't think the current version should stand. The reasons behind my opinion should be cliear to anyone reading the talk page. Marduk has not shown any willingness to provide citations a la WP:Cite, nor tolerate any viewpoint not their own, even in contrast. I think this violates WP:NPOV, and well as basic wikipedia ettiquite. While I agree the version that predated Marduk's edits needed a lot of work and citation as well, I think such corrections could have been accomplished much better through discussion, citation of published works, and compromise in order to bring about a more balanced article. Instead Marduk has unbalanced the article in the opposite direction, refused to provide citations for that imbalance either, refused to address the criticisms people have levied against their edits, and has lapsed into simple reversion of any version not their own. I still maintain that if Marduk can provide sources, citations, and a willingness to accept and contrast opposing historical viewpoints, their views can be blended into the existing article, and possibly could contribute greatly to the balancing of the artcile. Their motives are not wrong, but their lack of sources, and their "edit war" approach is unacceptable. - Vedexent 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: It should be made clear that Marduck's expansions of Carthaginian relgion and the legend of Dido are not being objected to. What is being objected to is his/her eradication of any other cultural viewpoint of Carthage, the section on the Roman recolonization of the site after Carthage ceased to exist, and (for some weird reason) the disambugation link to other uses of the term "Carthage". - Vedexent 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: It seems that anon/marduck's own source listed in his version of the article, phoenicia.org, supports the article's orginal "coflicting versions" approach. See this sub-page. I'm not sure how marduk is justifying the eradication of this point from any mention. - Vedexent 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Vedexent's last version which put forth the evidence for child sacrifice and suggested that there was an alternate interpretation. Richard 15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: That isn't my verion - that was part of the article since prior to the edit war. I believe it could have been stated better, but it still was somewhat balanced - Vedexent 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Vedexent, I agree with Marduk.  I also checked the Edit history and the IPs are different.  That doesn't mean that Hannibal isn't Marduk but Wikipedia guideline is to assume good faith.  I think you need to chill.  Your emotional involvement is a bit too high for your health. Richard 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but anon comments should count here as much as they do in AFD. please note Marduk uses a 'wide' range of IP addresses, sometimes several in the space of an hour. So unless we have the opposite of sockpuppeteering going on (many people claiming to be the same?), and given the nature of Hannibal's comment, it seems spurious to me....19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep in mind that Marduk seems to edit predominantly from AOL IPs, so there's really no way to tell whether it's him or not; he could be switching adresses with every edit. Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Commnet: Nope, Richard is right. There is no proof that Marduk is "sock-puppeting". It is also policy to "assume good faith" on Wikipedia. But I extend good faith only until someone repeatedly violates it. I have offered, repeatedly, to work with "marduck" to incorporate his/her view into the article, if it can be cited, balanced, etc. For that, and their response, you are free to read the talk page and the edit log.
*Disagree - The anon's version is a step backwards for this article. Citations should have better references than websites, and there is absolutely no reason to think the rewritten version is better than the version that stood before the dispute. -Throbblefoot 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page has been locked 

message: *Disagree: I don't think the current version should stand. The reasons behind my opinion should be cliear to anyone reading the talk page. Marduk has not shown any willingness to provide citations a la WP:Cite, nor tolerate any viewpoint not their own, even in contrast. I think this violates WP:NPOV, and well as basic wikipedia ettiquite. While I agree the version that predated Marduk's edits needed a lot of work and citation as well, I think such corrections could have been accomplished much better through discussion, citation of published works, and compromise in order to bring about a more balanced article. Instead Marduk has unbalanced the article in the opposite direction, refused to provide citations for that imbalance either, refused to address the criticisms people have levied against their edits, and has lapsed into simple reversion of any version not their own. I still maintain that if Marduk can provide sources, citations, and a willingness to accept and contrast opposing historical viewpoints, their views can be blended into the existing article, and possibly could contribute greatly to the balancing of the artcile. Their motives are not wrong, but their lack of sources, and their "edit war" approach is unacceptable. - Vedexent 15:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: It should be made clear that Marduck's expansions of Carthaginian relgion and the legend of Dido are not being objected to. What is being objected to is his/her eradication of any other cultural viewpoint of Carthage, the section on the Roman recolonization of the site after Carthage ceased to exist, and (for some weird reason) the disambugation link to other uses of the term "Carthage". - Vedexent 16:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: It seems that anon/marduck's own source listed in his version of the article, phoenicia.org, supports the article's orginal "coflicting versions" approach. See this sub-page. I'm not sure how marduk is justifying the eradication of this point from any mention. - Vedexent 16:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Vedexent's last version which put forth the evidence for child sacrifice and suggested that there was an alternate interpretation. Richard 15:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: That isn't my verion - that was part of the article since prior to the edit war. I believe it could have been stated better, but it still was somewhat balanced - Vedexent 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Vedexent, I agree with Marduk.  I also checked the Edit history and the IPs are different.  That doesn't mean that Hannibal isn't Marduk but Wikipedia guideline is to assume good faith.  I think you need to chill.  Your emotional involvement is a bit too high for your health. Richard 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but anon comments should count here as much as they do in AFD. please note Marduk uses a 'wide' range of IP addresses, sometimes several in the space of an hour. So unless we have the opposite of sockpuppeteering going on (many people claiming to be the same?), and given the nature of Hannibal's comment, it seems spurious to me....19:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Keep in mind that Marduk seems to edit predominantly from AOL IPs, so there's really no way to tell whether it's him or not; he could be switching adresses with every edit. Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Commnet: Nope, Richard is right. There is no proof that Marduk is "sock-puppeting". It is also policy to "assume good faith" on Wikipedia. But I extend good faith only until someone repeatedly violates it. I have offered, repeatedly, to work with "marduck" to incorporate his/her view into the article, if it can be cited, balanced, etc. For that, and their response, you are free to read the talk page and the edit log.
*Disagree - The anon's version is a step backwards for this article. Citations should have better references than websites, and there is absolutely no reason to think the rewritten version is better than the version that stood before the dispute. -Throbblefoot 06:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Does this article have potential to be a FA? 

message: Just for curiosity sake, how long does the page protection last?Bridesmill 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did. The request is Here if anyone wants to add comment to it - Vedexent 03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the request to have the page changed from full to semi protection got accidently erased in a "tidying up" of old and "responded to" requests. I left a message for the Admin that did it. I won't put that text back in until I hear back from them though. - Vedexent 00:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Cartago delenda est

message: Edit to your heart's content :) - Vedexent 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also decided not to edit the article for awhile. I'll participate in discussions here - heck I don't even mind doing refernce research for other people's questions - but I won't be touching the article itself for awhile. - Vedexent 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is unlocked. Now semi-protected. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability of child sacrifice details? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can someone archive chunks of this page?