Talk:Carthage/Archive 2

message: The first sentence contains the following statement: "written without vowels as QRT HDŠT." Now, while this is obviously an accurate extraction from the previous section which calls Carthage Qart-Hadasht, I'm curious whether or not it's pointed out for any reason. Is this just a quaint observation? R ds t br sm rlvnc t smthng? Mn, lthgh t s knd f fn t wrt lk ths, 'm wndrng f thr s pnt t t (Or does it bear some relevance to something? I mean, although it is kind of fun to write like this, I'm wondering if there is a point to it).
:It's because the caananite/hebrew/phonecian, and by extention, punic alphabet, has no vowels. Neither does egyptian for that matter. For this reason, transliterations of anything in these alphabets is always done without vowels in that transliteration system, since we can't be sure precicely how it was to be vowel-ized. Thanatosimii 03:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

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: 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: 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)
replies: text: If I were you I'd seek professional assistance. Miskin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You don't need to give up on the article Marduk. You can create a registered user account. This would allow you to contribute to the article (after a suitable wait, and even in the waiting period you can contribute to rational discussions here) - perhaps acting as "Carthaginian advocate" if you like. Being a registered member means you would have to work within the Wikipedia rules and conventions, rather than just shouting them down. I would recommend you read and understand the guidelines that have been quoted at you repeatedly, and get aquainted with the conventions here in the meantime, if that is a road you want to pursue. Personalities aside, if your arguments are backed by evidence (published works), sources, footnotes, etc., and you can respect (even if you don't like) other points-of-views and valid sources, your viewpoints can be blended into the article - perhaps creating a point/counterpoint structure discussing the controversy over some points. In short, you need not "pack up and go home", but you are now restricted to working wihin the system and with people instead of overtop the system, and despite people. The choice whether it is your methods and ego or a "more balanced explanation of Carthage" that is more important, is up to you. That's my final word on the issue; I'm not contributing another 100k of debate. - Vedexent 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone archive chunks of this page? 

message: A dark day for history and knowledge, I cant belive I was wrong about this site as a central for information. All those stern critics of this begotten loathsome site. No wonder people are fed with this type of bull shit. What a sad collection of informants, Greek and Roman Apologists writing to us YET again about a civilization in which they hate and despise.
Richo that was really nice, go pull onther marduk and develop some intellect and truthfulness. 
Well have fun Butt Raping Carthage everyone, iam sure you would like to call all your Graco-Roman Historical Revenist now to join in the fun of perverting information. Good Luck and have Fun
Just remember the Carthaginian's were the greatest people of the med sea, brining wealth,health and prosperity to all the known lands of that region, the exception of the Greeks who's population was almost certainty creating from Raping children and the Romans who elect Animals as there leaders (in this case a horse) submit to Vile and Disgusting Disturbing Orgy's with 7 year old boys and founded there city on Rape and Murder. Iam just so happy and overwhelmed with joy that these two group of people have come to this reunion for onther round with Carthage.
Good luck and I hope you all have fun
Yours truly--Marduk
::If I were you I'd seek professional assistance. Miskin 11:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to give up on the article Marduk. You can create a registered user account. This would allow you to contribute to the article (after a suitable wait, and even in the waiting period you can contribute to rational discussions here) - perhaps acting as "Carthaginian advocate" if you like. Being a registered member means you would have to work within the Wikipedia rules and conventions, rather than just shouting them down. I would recommend you read and understand the guidelines that have been quoted at you repeatedly, and get aquainted with the conventions here in the meantime, if that is a road you want to pursue. Personalities aside, if your arguments are backed by evidence (published works), sources, footnotes, etc., and you can respect (even if you don't like) other points-of-views and valid sources, your viewpoints can be blended into the article - perhaps creating a point/counterpoint structure discussing the controversy over some points. In short, you need not "pack up and go home", but you are now restricted to working wihin the system and with people instead of overtop the system, and despite people. The choice whether it is your methods and ego or a "more balanced explanation of Carthage" that is more important, is up to you. That's my final word on the issue; I'm not contributing another 100k of debate. - Vedexent 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what a sad collection

message: I've begun a little cleanup, while also keeping an eye on the Norwegian version for more information. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on this particular topic.
A few observations:
1) The intro paragraph is pretty heavy compared to e.g. the German and Norwegian ones. I think it would be better to start describing the city before the empire.
2) The part about Dido is somewhat confusing. First, it is not clear if Dido or Elissa(r) is the most common name. Second, I somewhat got the impression that the high priest was the effective ruler of Tyre. I'm not sure that is a correct interpretaion.
3) It might just be me, but the term "Phoenician Punic" is very heavy. Are there really no alternatives? 
4) The article needs to be checked for duplicate information. But all in all, it is an interesting read. Valentinian (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and a few points 

message: I'm currently working with the Mercenary War article, and I've come across a "map need" about Carthage, and was wondering if anyone had any solutions?
I would like to find
# A map showing the topography of the northeastern coast of Africa (the area around Carthag), as well as the cities of Tunis, Carthage, Utica, and Hippacritae, as well as the Bagradas River, and the canyon known as "The Saw" (see Battle of "The Saw").
# A map of the acient city of Utica.
Any of you map creators or map experts have any ideas on how these might be found/created? -  04:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Expansions? 

message: Someone has added a lot of links to the phoenicia.org website. Apart from the issue of whether this is a good reference or not (that issue has been discussed here before), the citations are incorrect in many cases. Often, the links lead to "mirrors" of works by other writers and scholars. The citations should be for the original authors - not the website creator. -  04:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good observation. I will fix that and cite the actual authors (I didn't notice that). Apart from this, it is a fine resource and it is just as credible as any other source of information. Nobody has made any real argument against it. -  10:01, 3 June
I would disagree that it is "just as credible as any other source of information" in all cases. Web sites, as a rule (and there are many exceptions to this rule), do not make good references. Typically they are un-referenced: we don't know what sources they are using, or the veracity/credibility of their sources. Additionally, few web sites work under any form of "editorial control" other than the whim of their webmaster. Obviously this doesn't hold true when web sites are mirroring published articles: published articles are more rigorous about their sources, and journals exercise editorial control. 
While I have not exhaustively examined phoenicia.org, the cursory examination I gave the site turned up examples of both kinds of articles. The referenced and "vetted" articles might make acceptable references, but I don't think the rest of the articles are valid sources for this article. -  15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Errors 

message: The claim that ships with carring capacity of 100 tons were not mached again in the 18th century is wrong.
Ships of tonnages in the 100 ton range were very common in the ancient meditarranean and in early modern europe. In fact, there are reports of ships with cargo capacity of 2,500 tons (the Siracusia grain ship build in syracuse in the 3th century BC) to 3,500 tons (the grain ship used to the construction of the lighthouse of the portus) in graeco-roman times. Ships with cargo capacity of 100 tons were average ships.--RafaelG 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the tonnage of cargo ships

message: Carthage was one of the largest city's in ancient times, with some 700,000 inhabitants, although it was not the second largest city in the world at any point in time. - KongminRegent
::In the middle ages some cities of 200,000 were the largest in the wordld. Between the fall of the persian empire and the rise of the great hellenistic cities of Alexandria, Antioch and Seleucia. Carthage could have been the largest city in the world. It probably was the largest city in the history of Tunisia until the XX century.--RafaelG 23:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of the city 

message: My browser normally has no problem with Hebrew text, but it can't show the recent edit which changed the Phoenecian text to Hebrew. Does anybody else have the same problem? Valentinian (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew text 

message: Well, given the recent edits, comments, attitude, and rhetoric by our "mysterious anon editor", if it isn't Marduk, I'll eat my hat. 
So, rather than get into another endless and pointless debate, or "tug of war" over the page, I've added an entry in  Wikipedia:Requests for page protection again.
As I said last time, I do not like the idea of forcing people out of the editing process - Wikipedia thrives only because of public contributions and debate. However, "Marduk" has, I believe, used his/her anonimity to bypass the possibility of censure when he/she violates wikipedia policy and rules. I believe that "Marduk" is free to edit this page, so long as he/she is held to the same rules as everyone else, and as a registered, non-anonymous user subject to the same penalties for violating those rules as we all are.
I would very much like people - both those of you who support and those of you oppose the idea - to add comments to it please. Thank you.
:Thank you to those who have already commented. Everyone else who has an opinion, for or against the measure, is still urged to comment. -  16:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection: Request for comments 

message: Once I have finished with work i'll be converting this page completly and then shielding it from the anti-carthaginian baised that has devolped here. First I have already gotten a pro response from the AD's about my idea. In other words iam going to settle this by converting this article into a short tid bits of Carthaginian info much like the quick run through article about Rome. In other words kids Myth's and legends such as sacrafice will have seperate articles all to themselves ^^. I already set up a triad of my student body of at least 17 members with reg accounts to support this move when such oppostion from biased members such as veny peep there little heads out this article will be ready for it. I already have most of the page written all I have to do is complete it and make a few corrections then ill replace the article. This will end the senseless yammering here and put an end to most of the arguments. but then I could see how members who have an axe to grind could contend other wise.Kara Umi 14:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I checked the rule book, no editor owned an article! I'll suggest you debate if you wish to make large-scale edits rather than posting threats to disrupt Wikipedia. Creating 17 or whatever accounts will be exactly that. Valentinian (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother discussing this. "They" have already been stupid enough to publically announce their plans. They can try to do it, and get their accounts banned from Wikipedia.
"no editor owned an article" exactly and it seems this article is owned by a few miss fit editors who oppose any editions made to the article that doesent agree with there biased point of view of carthage. As I saw skimming through the edit history. Which is why its time to end this. I mostly do edits in anime and japanese oriented articles but learning about Carthage and its history means I have a real passion for this historical era. Which is why iam going to end this once and for all. In any case iam going to refrain from posting further here until iam finished my draft. I hope this will work out best for all party's a quick skim through is just what this article needs not an entire essay. Kara Umi 16:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't you (and your 17 members who most likely share the same IP) have anywhere else to act like a teenage punk? You don't own the article, and don't come in here and talk about misfit editors who actually contribute and follow rules. What do you mean it needs a skim through? Isn't knowledge great when there's so very little of it KongminRegent 17:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Clean future for the article

message: Before I start making to more major type of edits, id like to ask here on this page for the pictures I asked for "marlin", thanks. "Soon to be" Kadaj" Kara Umi 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nearly finished 

message: Previously I wondered what happened to Roman Carthage ([Archived Talk]).  Recently, I found the info on the Exarchate of Africa page (silly of me not to have checked), and added a brief description at the end of the Carthage article. Thanks, Throbblefoot 17:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info! I hadn't even considered the question until you mentioned it. Ironic that Carthage keeps getting destroyed by the next wave of conquerors... - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ever happened to Carthage (redux) 

message: Is is worth mentioning the Mercenary War seperately, or is the history getting too long? It is an interesting event (at least I think so), but it is kind of an addendum to the First Punic War even though it was (almost) a purely internal Carthaginian event. - Vedexent (talk • contribs • blog) 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth mentioning but perhaps not separately. I should think it can be incorporated just as you suggest: as an addendum to the First Punic War. Just work it into the last part of that section. -Throbblefoot 05:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case it already has a mention in the article under the First Punic War - Vedexent 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You're ahead of us, but you haven't got to that point yet.... OK.... - Vedexent 12:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article should stay as it is. The mercenary war is a clearly separate event and should be considered in its own right. After all, wp:not#Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia or some cheap history textbook that has to lump everything together. By the same token, you could argue that the Russian revolution was an "addendum" to World War I. --85.187.44.131 23:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercenary War 

message: The article contains the following line:
:Due to the subjugation of the civilization by the Romans at the end of the Third Punic War, very few Carthaginian historical primary sources survive.
Is this accurate? I thought that no primary sources survived (apart from inscriptions), and that there were no original Cathaginian texts left (I would count Greek and Latin translations quoted by Greco-Roman historians as secondary source). Should this passage be amended, or are there existing Carthaginian primary texts? If so, I would very much like to find them! :) - Vedexent 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary sources? 

message: Before I try to fix the wrong etymologies for English "Punic" in the article "Carthage" a third time, only to see my changes reversed in a day or two, I guess I should briefly point out that I have been teaching Latin and Greek at the college level for more than 15 years. I know what I am talking about, and I have the relevant dictionaries (the Oxford Latin Dictionary and Liddle and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon) at hand in my office. 
The English adjective "Punic" is derived from the Latin adjective Punicus, -a, -um (that's why the English word ends in a "c"); the older vocalization of Punicus is Poenicus. The word Punius simply does not exist in Latin. The Latin noun meaning "a Punian" is Poenus in the nominative singular, Poeni in the nominative plural. The Greek adjective meaning "Phoenician" is phoinikêios. All this can easily be checked online at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform.
Xiphophilos 07:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymologies (Latin/Greek)

message: A recent anonymous edit has expanded the fall of Carthage section. For the most part, it adheres to the course of events. However, its tone is highly slanted (evil racist Romans slaughtering peaceful, egalitarian Carhaginians).
Not only does it attribute causes to actions which - as far as I know (and my knowledge of history is vastly imperfect) - cannot be supported by the historical record (i.e. it could be accurate, but we can't say one way or the other) - but it "glosses over" some of the actual nasty things the Romans did, which probably should be included (escalating Roman demands, the taking of hostages, all arms and armor from the city, and still demanding more, etc.).
So - here's what I'd like to see
* Some evidence of the racists attitudes attributed to the Romans. It is undeniable that Rome wanted to destroy Carthage, and was probably just looking for an excuse. The speeches of Cato reflect this. Nowhere have I seen racist motivations attributed to the Romans. Perhaps this is in other speeches by Cato? Perhaps this is in other documents?
* Some account of the siege from Carthaginian perspective? I have never seen the story of "a small fraction of the population hiding in the citadel, trying hard to surrender". I'm not saying it doesn't exist - just that I'd like to see some sort of reputable historical evidence.
* Some account of Scipio's "kill everything that moves" motive. It is undeniable that he starved most of the population to death, then sacked and burnt the city to the ground, and enslaved some 50,000. He was not a nice guy. However - I'd like to see some historical mention that he decided to "go in an slaughter everything that moves", as the edit implies.
* Some support for the speculation that most Carthaginians died in the latifundia. Perhaps they did - perhaps it is even likely. Show me the historical evidence, or it is merely speculation. The editor speculates that  "as only Greeks were habitually used as house-slaves", the Carthaginian population probably worked and dies in the fields. This is incorrect. While it is true that most family tutors in wealthy Roman homes were educated Greek slaves (Greek being the "language of the educated person" in the Greco-Roman world), there were many other household slave roles, and thus many possible non-Greek house slaves. I don't think we have any historical "slave demographics" though, so this is most likely just something we can't say one way or the other.
* Some reputable scholarship about the speculation as to why the Romans demanded the Carthaginian population move inland.
What the editor seems to have missed is that at this temporal distance, we can't address the motives and attitudes behind actions, unless they are specifically recorded. Many times they are  specifically mentioned by the historians of the time. Many times they are not, and in those cases it is not acceptable to substitute unsubstantiated speculation as fact. If you don't know something, you don't mention something. You don't just "make up something plausible.".
I hope the editor can provide some sort of backing for these points within the next week or so. If not, I will most likely take out the aspects that cannot be historically substantiated one way or another. - Vedexent 07:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is well-established that the Romans thought of the Carthaginians as treacherous (hence the derogatory term "Punic faith"). The rest of the description is rather journalistic, but not entirely false. The big difficulty here is distinguishing what the Romans actually sais from later glosses on it, in particular the writings of 19th-20thC anti-Semites (and then responses of anti-anti-Semites!) who used Roman comments on Carthage to set up an Aryan/Semite dichotomy in which Carthaginians came to epitomise alleged "Semitic" money-grubbing, deviousness, degeneracy etc in comparison to the upright Aryan Romans (read The Myth of the Twentieth Century for a lot of this stuff). This 19thC construct then got turned back on the Romans as evidence of their "racism". Paul B 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - that makes more sense. As you say - it wasn't so much the facts of the edits I was objecting to it was the "journalistic slant" and "attribution of attitude" that I was questioning - which is why I pointed out the objections and gave the author a chance to rebut/edit - whatever. Someone else just reverted the whole section. - Vedexent 21:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fall of Carthage 

message: Can anyone document passum (sp?), or paseto (sp?), the Carthaginian raisin wine? Chris 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: raisin wine

message: ...both the ancient city and the civilization.  True, but there is still to this day a city called Carthage.  I'm loath to change an intro on a topic that so many people work on, but since the city is still officially called Carthage, shouldn't it read something like: "Carthage is a city on the outskirts of Tunis, Tunisia.  In ancient times it was used to refer to the city as well as the civilization which developed, etc." Or words to that affect?  Yes, everyone coming to this page is interested in the historic vice the modern city, but all the same the area is still called Carthage today.  --Easter Monkey 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term Carthage refers to... 

message: I find fault with the following:
:"Irregular trade exchanges occurred as far west as Madeira and the Canary Islands, and as far south as southern Africa. Carthage also traded with India by traveling through the Red Sea and the perhaps-mythical lands of Ophir (India/Arabia?) and Punt, which may be present-day Somalia."
:
There has been no archaeological, nor solid historical evidence, of Carthaginian or Phoenician exploration of Madeira, nor the Canaries. Madeira, furthermore, was uninhabited and therefore no "trade exchanges" could occur. There is evidence from the Roman period the indicates exchange in the Canaries, but only after Carthage was destroyed. Carthage's position was that of domination of west mediterranean trade. Trade with Indian and East Africa would, in all likelihood, have been the domain of Greeks (Rhodians, Alexandrians, etc) or atleast Hellophones. If someone were to present solid historical or archaeological evidence for Carthaginian trade (something better than conjecture would be nice) in South Asia and East Africa, I would accept it. Otherwise, I submit the above offending passage for deletion. Just because it may have happened doesn't mean we should say it did.
D.E. Cottrell 05:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade Contacts and Discoveries

message: This article on an English-language Wikipedia is in serious need of Roman-alphabet transliterations for the Greek and Arabic names sprinkled throughout. —pfahlstrom 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliterations 

message: What did the Carthaginians actually look like? Were they African in appearance like the Numidians, Middle-Eastern like the Phoenicians? Or more reminiscint of Spaniards of Iberia? I've found little information on the subject on the internet and my local library is lucky to have a copy of the works of Tacitus but that's about it as far as that era of history (I know Tacitus was much later, just meant in general) Leoroc 03:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance?