Talk:Carthage/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Carthage. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Human Sacrifice?

In a three-paragraph discussion of Carthage, do we need to devote two of those paragraphs to a discussion of child sacrifice? -- Zoe

I've seen numerous sites that also describe reports of child sacrafice as potentially erroneous. At the very least that should probably be stated, or since it appears to be a questionable (among archaeologists) conclusion, merely that child sacrifice is one possible explanation for graves of children but that there are others. My bet is, this comes from the same source as the one for the original "Child Sacrifice" article. Rgamble

Yup, originally there were 4 paragraphs on child sacrifice, I just deleted two. Doubts should definitely be mentioned, and the section on Carthage proper should be expanded. AxelBoldt

While there's mention of sacrifice, perhaps it's also worth bearing in mind the relatively high infant mortality rate of the time. It would also not seem inconceivable to store the remains of the cremated children together in a dedicated crematorium. While we cannot know for certain, some have suggested that, since Rome managed to raze the place to the ground, there would have been little objection to a little "revisionism" on the part of the Romans.

Im not sure if this would be the right area, but I was wondering if there is anything on this website or any other website that can adequately give information about any landmarks of Carthage.

Here is an interesting discussion of Child Sacrifice in Carthage: http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html Legitimate classical historians cited sacrificial practices in Carthage, and there are also legitimate concerns over their accuracy. Both side should be covered in brief.

Updated chronology

I removed from the page the following, since as far as I can see, it is the author's own opinion rather than a general theory among historians, and as such I think falls under 'Wikipedia is not a place for original research'. If it is placed in the article, it should in my opinion at least be significantly shortened and qualified for NPOV reasons. Andre Engels 11:17 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

The date of Carthage's foundation is crucial for the chronology of the whole ancient world. The editor of this article has found four different dates in four books on the same bookshelf, in a library of a Brazilian university. They are ranging between 900 to 800 BCE, mainly round figures, indicating approximate dates. The alleged traditional foundation of Carthage took place in 814 BCE. This may come from a misunderstanding, a relative date before Rome's foundation. This is actually the birthdate of Cartage's constitution, according to Cicero, The Republic, II, XVII-XXX.

Iulius Solinus, a Roman historian recorded that the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE took place after 737 years of its existence, Carthago post annos 737 quam fuerat extructa exciditur. Also see Reese's Cyclopaedia under Carthage, or Rollin's Ancient History Volume I, Rollin's Roman History, Volumes III-V, or Ancient Universal History, Volumes XV-XVI. The date 146 BCE is not debated by any scholar. Therefore, reckoning with 737 full years, Carthage was founded in 883 or 884 BCE. Josephus Flavius Contra Apionem (Against Apion), Book I, 17-18 contains an important list of Phoenician rulers, including some high priests of Baal. One can read the complete text at the On-line Library of www.google.com as well.

Josephus Flavius tells that the whole time from the reign of Hirom (Hiram), till the building of Carthage, amounts to the sum of 155 years and 8 months. Since then the temple was built at Jerusalem in the twelfth year of the reign of Hirom, there were from the building of the temple, until the building of Carthage, one hundred forty-three years and eight months. The substracting of Josephus works well, at least in this simple exercise. This sort of confirmation may indicate the possibility that he has got the total as a first-hand information, and the reader should not be bothered if other details of the list would not add up so perfectly. According to this, King Solomon started to build the temple in 1029 BCE, probably at the beginning of the 12th year after Hiram's accession. Hiram reigned 34 years (1040-1006 BCE), and died at the age of 53. Therefore, he was still alive twenty years after the beginning of Solomon's fourth year, and 1 Kings 9: 10-14 is right. The above list of Josephus confirms that Carthage was founded, or perhaps re-founded and enlarged, in 883 or 884 BCE. This took place in the seventh year after Pygmalion's accession, by his escaping sister Elissa, as Josephus tells. His father Mettinus (Matgenus or Mutgo, the priest of Baal, who is Mattan in 2 Kings 11: 18) and Queen Athaliah were slain in 891 or 890 BCE. Therefore, the Bible and the non-Christian Josephus who has cited these from Dius and Menander of Ephesus, agree accurately. Josephus, Wars VI, X.1 claims that David settled in Jerusalem 477 years and 6 months before its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. The latter date is traditionally 587 BCE, therefore Josephus has placed that event at the beginning of 1064 BCE. It is well-known that, after this, David was king for 33 years in Jerusalem, till 1031. (Before his death, he appointed Solomon as king in 1032 BCE.) Returning to the chronology of Carthage, Greek authors like Theophylus, Menander and others give slightly different regnal years for some rulers. Those numbers combined with the figures of Josephus Flavius may add up to form an accurate Phoenician chronology.

A masterpiece entitled Ogygia of O'Flaherty (1685: 83-85) correctly lists several key dates of world history. From the Fall of Troy, or Troja excisae (2767 Anno Mundi) to the Milesian (Gaidelic) conquest (A.M. 2934) we can calculate 167 years of difference, so they correspond to 1183/2 and 1016/5 BCE, accordingly. From the latter he claims 133 years to Carthage's reconstruction, and 263 years to Varro's date for the foundation of Rome. Also, 1016 less 133 years yield 883 again, and 1016 minus 263 years give us the traditional 753 BCE. Considering all these, the foundation of Carthage can be placed in 883 BCE. Many modern authorities do not accept any data that had originated from antique Jewish sources or historians regarding Old Testament times, claiming that all their records are false. The present editor cannot accept their views, and believes that most of those Jewish historical information is true and correct, providing an important framework to supoport Phoenician chronology.

Salting of Carthage by the Romans

Is the story about salting the land around Carthage true? I have also read that is more of a legend than truth...they actually just threw a handful of salt on the ground to symbolize that no one would be allowed to live there after it was destroyed. (Now I'll have to see if I can find where I read that...) Adam Bishop 00:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Adam: I should know better than that, too. Guess I got a little caught up in describing the destruction of Carthage. I'm removing the reference. Also, I haven't had time (and probably won't for several days) to cull the important events referenced in this article onto the various pages for individual years. If someone else wants to grab that task, I'd be grateful.

Justin Bacon

I have no reference about it but it's not impossible after all lake Tunis is a salt lake and it's not that far. Ericd 10:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The case, for me, is made not so much on the impossibility of the act (the argument that "the Romans wouldn't do it because salt was precious"), but on the fact that no ancient source for the salting has ever been found. A very strong case has been made that the entire incident can be traced back to a history text from the late 19th century, and has been propagated from there ever since. The fact that a new city was established in essentially the exact same location only a little while later (and then designated the capital of Roman Africa) also suggests that the land was not permanently ruined. :Justin Bacon 16:53, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have no special skills in history. If there is no source before the 19th is probably mythical. For what I know about the geography the region I think is that the economic argument as presented on that page [[1]] is a wrong view. The only valid question to see if that was possible is how many people, how many chariots and how many time to carry free salt from lake Tunis ? You know there is an article Salting the earth maybe we could incorporate this debate in ? Ericd 06:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

sack of Carthage

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)

Incoherence

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)

Scipio Africanus Minor!!

In the above question the Scipio who conquered Hannibal and died in 183 BCE is Publius Cornelius Scipio who was given the name Africanus for his defeat of Hannibal and Carthage and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Major. In 146 BCE Carthage was utterly desrtroyed by the Romans led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus who was given the name Africanus and is referred to as Scipio Africanus Minor to distinguish him from his adoptive grandfather Scipio Africanus (Major).

Fathers of international commerce

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)

Hanno the Navigator and Cape of Good Hope

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)

what ever happened to Carthage, anyway?

Completely ignorant about Carthage, I wondered why there isn't a city there now. The article implies that the *ruins* of Carthage are a tourist attraction, but it never explains how the city was finally destroyed. Could someone please expand upon the "finally overrun by the rising forces of Islam" assertion? Thanks, Throbblefoot 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The basic reason is that the Arabs founded the city of Kairouan to the south (which soon became the main African city of the Arab Caliphate), rather than building up or rebulding Carthage. AnonMoos

I think it was destroyed by the Romans

Then you would likely benefit from reading this article in its entirety. Throbblefoot 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent anonymous changes

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)

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)

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)

In 149 B.C., it was learned that the local Carthaginian government was attempting to regain influence and power in the local area. Rome did not want to give them that opportunity so they responded by sending Scipio Aemilianus, adopted son of Scipio, with an army over to North Africa to lay siege to the city of Carthage. The men stayed behind to fight off the oncoming attack while the women and children attempted to evacuate. The men were slaughtered and most of the women and children were sold into slavery by the Romans. They proceeded to destroy the city's many monuements, statues, and buildings and burned the city to the ground. They poured salt upon the ashes of the city so that nothing would grow for a long, long time.

Minor changes

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. Sardinia 84.84.220.60 13:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Timbert

Timbert,

I am reintroducing the bit about Carthaginians having reached as far as Sierra Leone/Nigeria. There are good reasons for believing they did:

1) One nautical account from Carthage describes seeing a coastal volcano, which was not otherwise to be found anywhere along the African coast within closer reach of Carthage westward.

2) Another account is given of the local fauna, including an encounter with gorillas (a name given by the Carthaginians). A gorilla skin was taken and adorned the wall above the Carthaginian throne for many years.

Perhaps you have reason to question the arrival of Carthaginians in West Africa, but you didn't present them. Please do so, or let the entry stand.

--Philopedia 13:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Canaan

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)

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)

Carthaginian navy

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)

Quick question

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).

the amount of saddness and stupidity is staggering

Historians Like Diodorus have to be the absouletly Worst and Vile of all the Historians in the history of mankind. Never has a staright out Myth made by one single man, One Single Man has been converted into more Lies and Belivble Fiction like the False Claim that the Carthaginians Sacraficed Children. Unlike Rome Carthage did not Sacrafice Human Beings. Why did he creat myths of such a scale well no one knows Diodorus might have been insane he might have been a madmen, but this is for sure he was sick.

Were it not for a few classical accounts, scholars would probably not attribute the burials in the Carthage Tophet to child sacrifice. Some of the more sensational stories, such as those related by the first-century B.C. historian Diodorus Siculus, have been picked up in modern times and passed off as the entire truth. In the 19th century, for instance, Gustave Flaubert described Punic child sacrifices in his novel Salammbô; he had no evidence at all, except for the classical sources.

The classical sources are unreliable? What if all the evidence regarding the burials either from literary sources or archaeological excavations is unreliable or inconclusive? Which they are unreliable and inconclusive.

Here is Diodorus’s account of how the Carthaginians sacrificed their children: "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus, extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire" the amount of sick and horrid imaginations this man had *shudders* This is the stuff of myth, not history. Diodorus, who was from Sicily, was probably mixing up stories about Carthage with ancient Sicilian myths - specifically the myth of the great bronze bull, built for the Sicilian tyrant Phalaris, in which the king’s enemies were roasted alive.

Now, when we come to more credible sources, or at the least somewhat *sigh*, like the Roman historian Polybius, there is no mention of Carthaginian child sacrifice. Polybius, we know, was with the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus when the Roman destroyed the City. Polybius had no love of Carthage he fought against the city. His evidence would have been decisive. But he does not make the least allusion to child sacrifice at Carthage.

Nor does the Roman historian Livy, a more reliable contemporary of Diodorus. Livy was relatively well informed about Carthage, yet he was not so affectionate toward the city as to cover up what would have been in his eyes the end for his enemy.

Neither the classical sources nor the Quranic or Biblical passages provide conclusive evidence concerning the events that took place in the Carthage Tophet. What about the physical facts?

There is no real physical proof, it is lies and bent evidence that has been found into actually saying its proof. Do you know why this is so and the reason these Lies will never be heard or released? because imagination is not physical and imagination cannot be released only by those people who hold on to them even as the imagination is dispelled.

The Carthage Tophet, like other Tophets in Sicily and Sardinia, was not a necropolis. It was a sanctuary of the Punic god Ba’al Hammon. Not one of these inscriptions, however, mentions death

The texts of the inscriptions in the Carthage Tophet suggest that the sanctuary was open to everyone, regardless of nationality or social status. We know that Greek-speaking people made use of the sanctuary, for instance, since some inscriptions have the names of the gods transcribed in Greek characters. Foreigners who visited the Tophet clearly did not offer Ba’al Hammon their offspring. Nor is it likely that visitors from other Punic settlements visited the Carthage Tophet to bury or sacrifice their children. One inscription, for example, mentions a woman named "Arishat daughter of Ozmik." The inscription tells us that Arishat was a "Baalat Eryx," or noble woman of Eryx, a Punic community in Sicily. It seems reasonable to assume that Arishat, while visiting the great city of Carthage, simply felt the need to pay homage to the Punic gods - or to utter a vow or make a request. These where the times of Carthage, men and Woman traveling to Carthage visiting the beautiful city it was the Sururity of peace and harmony Carthage had with the other settlements of the Mediterranean Sea.

The Carthage Tophet was a sacred sanctuary where people came to make vows and address requests to Ba’al Hammon and his consort Tanit, according to the formula do ut des ("I give in order that you give"). Each vow was accompanied by an offering of fruit for Tanit. and sacrificed Animals for Bhaal. The presence of the incinerated bones of very young children, infants and even fetuses is puzzling. If the Tophet was not a cemetery (as the presence of animal bones suggests), why do we find infants and fetuses buried in a sanctuary?

It is very common, all over the world, to find that children who die young, and especially fetuses, are accorded special status. Many cultures believe that these are simply not ordinary deaths. The Italian archaeologist Sabatino Moscati has pointed out that in certain Greek necropolises children were incinerated and their tombs were located in a separate sector, quite distinct from the burial place used for adults. This is also the case in some Islamic necropolises, where sections are reserved exclusively for the tombs of infants. Even today, Japanese children who die young, called Gizu, are placed in special areas of a temple, and they are represented by carved figurines that suggest their holy status. Great its so sad, Carthage is being persecuted because it wanted to bury its lost children in a separate place from every one else who died :( .

Punic children who died young possessed a special status.They body's were burnt and buried inside an enclosure reserved for the temple of of lord Ba’al Hammon and lady Tanit. Something reserved only for the Sacred band, tho it seems the Carthaginians cared a great deal for there children why? Ba’al Hammon decided to recall them to himself. Submitting to divine will, the parents returned the child, giving it back to the god according to a ritual that involved, In return, the parents hoped that Ba’al Hammon and Tanit would provide a replacement for the retroceded child - and this request was inscribed on a funeral stela, Something you will never get from the historians who make these lies, they will withhold this fact from you and you will become lost without it, iam sorry you have been lied to but its no reason for me to allow people to defile my ancient ancestry.

Thus the Tophet burials were not true offerings of children to the gods. Rather, they were restitutions of children or fetuses taken prematurely, by natural death. Every credible historian today agrees with this, there are still those who hate Carthage and are to sunk in on telling of Roman roads and bridges to tell the truth about Carthage. But there numbers are diminishing and it wont be long until finally they disappear.

Carthaginians did not sacrifice their children to Ba’al Hammon in the Tophet. This open-air site, accessible to all who cared to visit the place, was a sacred sanctuary presided over by Ba’al Hammon and his consort Tanit. The human remains found in the urns buried in the Tophet were of children recalled to the presence of the gods; that is why they were buried in the sanctuary. To this sanctuary came grieving parents, who gave their children back to Ba’al Hammon and Tanit. Sometimes the parents would offer animal sacrifices to the gods to solicit their favor. Then they had funeral stelae carved and inscribed with vows, along with the poignant request that the divine couple grant them further offspring.

If we begin to Belive Myths and Concuted story's from Greek Mytholigists then we may as well Belive in the Amazons and Sea serpants, I guess Herculas did go and Conquer the entire East all by himself, really know people when A enemy of a fallen people Endorses the undoing of there enemy you use your head. The Carthaginians where a people of a great city and that was the City Baal.

Responses, as per Wikipedia Talk page convention

See comments below about conventions for indenting and responding in Wikipedia. It is clear you do NOT know the conventions concerning talk pages here - which you can find on almost ANY talk page here in Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend you learn the ettiquite of Wikipedia rather than having temper-tantrums when that ettiquite fails to match your personal convensions. It took me forever to figure out why you were complaining because my comments have been following the conventional ettiquitte here.Addendum: after posting this paragraph, a "mysterious anonymous editor" removed the header above it, which used to read: "blank poster who continues to site his reply's within my posts please cut it out its childish (sighned Marduk)". Curious. - Vedexent 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - first of all, this is a personal view, and a massive essay. I'm not sure what it has to do in an article.
The author of it - or at least an anonymous editor with similar views has
- Taken out the disambiguation link (apparently we're not allowed to have links to OTHER uses of the term?).
- Taken out the mention of the Greek poetic tradition (apparently we're not allowed to hear other culture's impression of Carthage?).
- Removed the mention of human sacrifice. Even if you disagree with the idea that human sacrifice occured, and can provided evidence that it never did, such evidence should be provided along side the "misconceptions", explaining where the "misconceptions" come from, why they are probably wrong, and providing evidence for that. To be fair, the "human sacrifice" angle should have its own citations and supporting evidence as well.
Added blantantly POV passages like "Rome no doubt copied the system". Citation please?

What the "author" has done is simply disagreed with a view in the article, and unilaterally removed it. This is censorship. This is borderline vandalism.

Because of this, I'm reverting their edits. This is a shame, as they have added some good material as well - specifically they expanded the sections on Dido and the Carhaginian religious practices, which are actually constructive.

The article may have been heavily and unfairly slanted against Carthage prior to the edits, and could use editing. Most Wikipedia articles can. Slanting it blatantly the other way, and ripping out views you don't agree with, without providing counter-arguments in text, and simply censoring out the opposing view, is unacceptable. - Vedexent 13:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleansing and Purty of Facts

Ok first of all, the misconceptions and ignorance that isent held by any credible sources nor actuall Evidence such as physical proof or even a credible literary source such as Polybius and other uncounted for historians exists for this new found claim that the Carthaginian relgion admitted Sacrafice like there enemy rome.

Are you saying We should just put and allow Psedu-History and revinist theories because you say so or because as you have plainly pointed out and thankfully admitted is Misconception, no!

We should just revert the Cleaning of a Detested Wiki input of say the Greeks because I belive and there is a theory that some of there populations grow up with horns on there heads (As does one of there "Truthful" historians claim) because its out there, no!

I have removed the spam and garbage of references to Greek and Roman Civilization, I don't think Carthaginians care for what the Greeks or Romans think of them. This just causes more space and spam to be implemented needlessly if you want to have a set of facts stating what these two civilization's view on things or whatever then do it in a separate section in fact ill do that for you and I encourage the poster above me to edit it and add in his own facts I also tell him to remember FACTS not Theory's or Ideas but FACTS

Secondly, that isent an essay its the central point for historians today who are putting down these false claims and myths who have been unsurprisingly traded for the truth, and guess what one of them has paid you a visit get used to it times are changing people aren't as ignorant and "stupid" as they were a few hundred years ago, Carthage didn't sacrifice humans unlike there enemy Rome, either find (*Sigh*) proof and evidence to convert myths to reality or don't pervert information to try and continue this trend

Finally, My edit was a much needed cleansing of this sad excuse for a central point of information. What I did was remove the Rhetoric and pseudo-history and purify it to being straight to the point and free of garbage and unneeded information.

((quote)) Removed the mention of human sacrifice. Even if you disagree with the idea that human sacrifice occurred, and can provided evidence that it never did, such evidence should be provided along side the "misconceptions", explaining where the "misconceptions" come from, why they are probably wrong, and providing evidence for that. To be fair, the "human sacrifice" angle should have its own citations and supporting evidence as well."" ((end quote))

So you want this base for information on the Carthaginian people to be a platform for this type of debate and senseless arguments, no it doesen;t work that way. You cant instill Firm information with personal views of anti-Carthaginian or misconception theory's into a Central for Carthaginian Facts.

what you have done was simply disagree with me with the argument of that Senseless rhetoric and pointless debate should be placed on this platform? What is that, no it doesent work that way you leave history to history and place whatever "Ideas" or "Fiction" you may have of other in platforms such as Fictional Books or just Rant and rave on a forum if you like.

I do agree with you however that before my edit there was a staggering file of misconception and blant out lies, removing those was a much needed cleaning that has been done and with your perversion of "restoring" it to its previous state aimed towards me and with no intent to add anything for yourself is a blant Vandalism of information and is a clear Perversion which I suggest to you refrain from in the future, thank you

this was a poor excuse for an edit, I would like to continue to Edit the whole of this page I would be able to do this in better time if the disgruntled poster above me not pant and pount about his own personal view on how things should be conducted, the guideline for writing facts is simple, Pure,Clean and to the point.

Marduk Of babylon ----

((Thank you for inserting a header within your reply's (to the poster below me), thats a trait of common courtesies iam happy you dicided to follow along I am also happy youve dicided to refrain from editing my posts actions like that are what we call Vandalisim))--sighned Marduk

Response to above "points"

I have NOT edited your responses - so don't go accusing me of Vandalism. Point #1 was made in the list below because when I got to this page your responses were already messed up. It is why they didn't make any sense to me!. That is why I made the (now) following comment as well! - Vedexent 22:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah - that's what happened. I wondered why your response seemed so disjointed - someone was inserting text? However, please don't put your personal messages to them as headers for my response. - Vedexent 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but I am assuming the English is not your first language as your arguments are quite convoluted, but I will try and respond to them.
At least sign your diatribes. If you are new enough to Wikipedia that you don't know how to do this much, I would suggest you don't really know enough about how the wikipedia community works to be doing large-scale, ideologically based, edits.
If you're going to put in "facts" please cite them, or they'll be removed
your opinions of certain historians are noted. They are your opinions only.
removing views that you disagree with, without supporting evidence, is vandalism. It will be reverted, and/or referred to an administator for arbitration, and if you continue to do this, you can be banned from Wikipedia.
What the primary objection to your edits is this: You removed one set of unsubstantiated facts, with another group of unsubstatiated facts. Why should we choose yours over what is there?
What did you take out all the wikilinks?!
Your edit reads like you have some sort of historical agenda. Your edits aren't any more NPOV than what is there.
When you have citations, put material in. - Vedexent 20:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I have flagged the article as disputed, and flagged the sections that seem to be "offensive" as needing citation. I do note, however, that the original author already points out the evidence for sacrifice, and then points out an opposing view that the claims for sacrifice are simply blood libel and are may not be true. This is a blanced view, which needs citation for both side of the argument. Unilaterally removing an "offending viewpoint" as you are trying to do is not NPOV, nor is it acceptable. - Vedexent 21:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Main question: what historical sources are you using?. Put them in the bibliography, make reference to them. - Vedexent 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Only one person has other than me has been editing this talk page. Why the hell are you editing your own arguments - and you're referring to me as "blank user"? Seems ironic since you were the one taking out other people's material. - Vedexent 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Call for citations and references

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)

Section on Sources?

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)

An end to Myth

No I will accuse you of editing my posts because you have, first with my header I will advise you against doing so again please. So on that point you are a vandal. My response to you wasen't already "Messed Up" in fact they made the argument pretty clear and to the point if you couldent keep up thats not my problem also you have yet to respond to them you are simply here ranting you haven't made an effort to repute my post but yet even so you edit my edit without a clear reason.

You ask me was someone inserting texts now this is laughable, that someone is you, please go and check where you signed your name "Vedexent" or whatever unto that insertion before again I have added to it a header and a warning, please do not insert text into my posts.

Now thats out of the way:

A good point you made I will need to cite facts, so what I need you to do is stop acting like a child, so instead of stomping your foot on the ground and Removing the edits I make, allow me the time to not have to yammer on with you here and "Cite" The Facts

My opinion on certain matters do not concern you nor this page about Carthage, its people,religions,structures,foundations,settlement's, and government, in other words the opinions of the "Greeks" and "Romans" do not matter nor should be a reference for Facts within this page, so onther cludder of space has been removed.

((quote))removing views that you disagree with, without supporting evidence, is vandalism. It will be reverted, and/or referred to an administrator for arbitration, and if you continue to do this, you can be banned from Wikipedia.((end quote))

And inserting view that are without Fact's or proof is also "Citing views without Evidence", As I have said before keep this a base of information not a platform for people to debate "what if" and "how else". That can be done here, but within the article there should only be facts, actual knowledge not theories or Psedu-Historical inquiry. There for I have removed the Riff Raff

((quote}}:# What the primary objection to your edits is this: You removed one set of unsubstantiated facts, with another group of unsubstatiated facts. Why should we choose yours over what is there?((end Quote))

First of all mine are not substantiated it is your editing that "clean washing" the article I edit I have noted this and I will be reporting it to the Proper Administration.

Why should we choose his over what is revised to bring Clean and spam free article about Carthage, of course I can see how a Graco-Roman Apologist such as yourself would contend otherwise

There is no evidence for Sacrifice taking place in Carthage, there is no proof, no evidence, no finds or literary sources which would conclude that there was sacrifice in Carthage, hence NO FACTS. This is a database of Facts and Real Historical inquiry not a platform for Revinist theories and Pesdu-historical inquiry. Therefor the section on Carthaginian religion will stay as I have put it citing facts and without you editing there should be sources as well,

thank you--Marduk of Babylon

Calling for arbitration

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)
I have problems taking an "editor" seriously who accuses me of vandalism for following talk page conventions they don't seem to have learned, and then according to their own edit log stop discussing to run off to commit minor vandalism in the Rome article. A little hypocricy here, you didn't think anyone would notice, or someone else was using that IP for.... 4 minutes?

Contacted Administrator

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography

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)

"I have removed the spam and garbage of references to Greek and Roman Civilization, I don't think Carthaginians care for what the Greeks or Romans think of them."
I think everyone would agree that this argument does not at all justify such large scale edits. The anon has obviously a personal agenda on the topic and comes from a biased perspective. As long as his edits are unsourced, we should keep reverting him until he understands how wikipedia works. Miskin 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Part of history is the history itself. And if part of that history is people saying things which have little or no foundation in truth, but which are believed anyways, that does not legitimize removing these things from the record either because we consider them POV or we don't agree with them. If child sacrifice is an issue, use a line like "Xxx historians long alleged that child sacrifice was practiced here {ref}" This allows the reader to understand why people from Xxx held certain atitudes, and why/how political relations developed over time. What is important to note, is that scholarly references should definitely be provided - for this kind of subject, www.whyIhateCarthaginians.com is probably not a good source. Be careful that the above NPOV is not twisted by poor language usage or POV pushing as "Child sacrifice was practiced here as attested to by the Xxx historians". If you are concerned that your language may be misconstrued, and you are not a native English speaker, consult someone who is prior to putting a potentially inflammatory point on a page. To remove all nastiness simply because 'you don't have incontrovertible proof' is revisionist history. Just make sure you specify those things that are proven facts and those things that are interpretations/assessments/beliefs which shape(d) perceptions. And even if you are a great fan of Carthage, including the allegations about nastiness should be in your interest in helping others understand why Carthage has a bad (potentially undeserved) image. In reference to the above, this is not just about Carthaginians - it is about human relations - indeed, it is Very Important what Greeks, Romans, and everyone else thought (as long as we dont take their opinions as 'facts') Bridesmill 02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, this article could use a bit of an NPOVing - NOT mass deletions; If you would like I can have a go.Bridesmill 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I have a right to comment here, being involved in the original dispute, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. I think the anon has a valid point in that the allegations of child sacrifice cannot be proven. However, I fully agree with Bridesmill that "unfair" anecdotes that have historical tradition need to be included, if for no other reason than to present reasons to discount them, and the attempt to expunge any "unpleasant facts" is what rankled me the most. I acknowledge that the anon included usefull expansions to the Carthaginian pantheon, and the founding legend of Dido. I also think they they (perhaps indirectly) point out the fact that the article as it stands is woefully undercited, and not totally NPOV either. That was what was behind my earlier request. As Bridesmill points out, "Xxx historians long alleged that child sacrifice was practiced here {ref}" is much more NPOV, and harder to justify removing then "child sacrifice was practiced here." Proper use of references and inline citations would make the article more balanced and less prone to such edit wars. In short, I don't object to some of the points of the anon editor, just the personal agenda they seemed to be pursuing in their edits, and that they seemed to be replacing one potential imblance with another - Vedexent 03:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not going to repeat all the good points made above. I agree that child sacrifice should be mentioned because important sources have recorded the practice. If there are verifiable sources who dispute it, that should be mentioned as well. The anon has a valid point but is being unreasonable in the way he/she is pushing it. Richard 06:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)

We have to keep reverting him until he respects wikipedia procedures by responding to our comments and/or providing sources. If he continues to edit-war then we should seek for a lock and maybe even a ban.
By the way, speaking of child sacrifice, this is what I found in a random Tunisian tourist guide:
The Tophet, centre of Carthaginian child sacrifice:
...Also those who excavated the site have supported the view that Phoenicians practised child sacrifice. A Greek writer, the third century BC Alexandrian Critarchus tells us how the Carthaginians would sacrifice a child to Chronus every time they needed a big favour. Other ancient sources say or imply that child sacrifice was a feature of Carthaginian religious life. Centuries later, the sources appear to have been vindicated with the discovery of a sacred precinct in Carthage. Dedicated to Tanit Pene Baal and her consort Baal Hammon, the area contained numerous stelae and burian urns, filled with the cremated bones of infants, lambs and kids, along with amulets, beads and jewllery. Biblical evidence also attends to child sacrifice among the Canaanites, as the Bible calls the Phoenicians... In any event the similarity of the literary sources suggest that child sacrifice was a very real part of Charthaginian religious practice...
The source goes on and on about this topic, but honestly is there any need to continue? Miskin 10:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon: In addition to the contentious bits which you are obviously passionate about, you seem to have something useful to contribute, and much of what you have which may be useful is getting reverted because you refuse to participate in discussion, follow WP etiquette, and agree to need for WP:NPOV. Failure to Play Nice is not going to do either your reputation or credibility any good - if you get yourself blocked or the page gets protected, all the potential value you could add here would be wasted. Please don't get yourself categorized as a Vandal.

Regular Editors: I sense that there is not much sense debating this ad nauseum, as all concerned seem to agree to the NPOV & referencing concepts *exept* anon who does not want to play, although some of what he has added (re. ancent religion, the Carthaginian pantheon) could be useful. If he continues without engaging in reasonable discourse, I would say I can add nothing more except a suggestion to take this to Admin for appropriate block/protect for vandalism. (probably sooner rather than later)Bridesmill 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You people are clearly insane ranting and raving at the top of your lungs, the main reason I decided it was pointless to argue and debate a gang who are clearly Graco-Roman Apologist with an axe to grind and are hiding under a shroud that "They Need Sources" I HAVE GIVEN IT.

That last edit of mine was just the stumbling block of the sources I plan to present if you actually read through it and made an effort not to try to vandalize wikipedia and Carthage then I would have had more today to bring about even more and edit the edit's I have made to revise them.

However this gang is not out for facts, nor clear truth they detest my goal to try to keep this article as spam and garbage free as possible while at the same time provided sources. They are nothing more then Historical Apologists out slander Carthage I have seen this before I have seen how people like them hide under a different ruge and I have reputed every last one and iam sick of it and your kind of liers.

Your attempts of censorship has been noted and I have reported that to the Administration as well, I advise you two lunatics to either calm down relax or just simply take a cold shower. Learn some common courtesy. I Will return my last edit as I have inputted into it a Wealth of sources and hoarded as much information as one can, if you wish to slander Carthage or Vandalize a people who don't exist anymore then I suggest you find onther platform because in Wikipedia we don't tolerate that, this is a collection of "Human" Knowledge that is the purpose of Wikipedia not a collection of Roman and Greek knowledge not a platform for Western ant-eastern gangs like you to slander other people and civilization's.

Carthage did not sacrifice children there is nothing no proof, no credibility, no finds, there is absolutely nothing, people like you and historians like diodorus are a disease in the world perverting history perverting texts perverting everything mankind has worked for, has strived for to bring about truth and some Sense into life, the west really needs to grow up because people are fed up with this garbage.

There is a claim Carthage once floated in mid AIR, should we PUT THAT IN TO. There's a claim that the Egyptians were actually taught how to build pyramids by the survivors of Atlantis why not go the Egyptian article and wine over there because *Gasp* they don't mention that in there. Pesdu-History and Revinist fabrications are kept as Opinions not FACTS Keep the article FACT I have Presented more Sources then the original one you no longer have any reason to vandalize I suggest you grow up and find onther platform to argue your senseless theories I also ask what ever administration is looking unto these posts take note of what is happening, thank you

Marduk of Babylon

Everyone knows