Talk:Carthage/Archive 1

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 [] 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 ŠP&#7788; (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. Sardinia84.84.220.60 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&mdash;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

 * 1) 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...


 * 1) 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
 * 2) 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?
 * 3) You have repeatedly taken out the disambiguation link which is common, if not policy to have.
 * 4) 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.
 * 1) You have at no time, despite being asked provided your own histortical sources. Therefore
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) Please pay close attention to WP:NPOV and WP:V sections of the Wikipedia writing guidelines. - Vedexent 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) 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 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
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.

People need to stop vandalizing now please

Marduk of babylon

Firstly
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)

End the argument
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)

Agree - reluctantly. I had rather hoped that Anon Marduk, whoever he/she is, would have engaged in debate, but hey, we offered & tried. Go for it.00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Bridesmill 00:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The anon avoids every sort of dialogue and prefers long babbling monologues which make no sense. I'm not really in the mood of explaining why I/we are not a bunch of Western-centric, Graeco-Roman fanatics who wish to propagate against an imaginary Eastern civilisation which doesn't even exist anymore, therefore we have no choice but to revert according to the editor and scholarly consensus. I suppose he didn't even bother to read the citation I randomly found on the phoenician child sacrifice. Even if some of his contributions are correct, his refusal to provide sources and engage in a constructive discussion forces us to remove them. As time passes he makes it worse for himself: Edit-warring, POV-pushing, personal attacking and the list goes on. Miskin 01:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Agreed people such as you who have ignored my posts and my citings, you have also ignored the debate in which I have offered. The trolls here have a clear agenda to slander other people and in this matter slander Historical Facts, they would prefer to have fictions,theories, and myths then clear cut points,Facts,information that I have put on.

For the benfit of these trolls iam going to put forth to them a clear cute giudeline for the rules:

Vandalisim

Nonsense (or "vandalism") can include:


 * Fabricated information (hmm time for the trolls to think on this one,...FACTS)


 * Profanity


 * Inappropriate pictures


 * Random junk text

-- Marduk Of Babylon

Blank
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)

WP
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)

Marduk, face it, you lost
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:


 * 1) 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,
 * 2) 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


 * 1) Because other cultures did write about Carthage, it is valid to mention.
 * 2) 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)

Marduk, read WP:Cite
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 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)

Carthaginian Archeology
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)

Complaints
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)

Iam quiet sure it does, well as much as I would love to continue to Yammer on here with you and make silly little comebacks for I would perfer to keep my maturity so I leave you to wallo in your own words, have fun. Also people please take note of what has happend in the posts above me Judge for yourself do not let contended Myth Vs Facts come out a victory the "Wrong Way" and Cast your vote--Marduk Of Babylon

Thank you Admins
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Page has been locked
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) (oops - either forgot to sign or it got edited out later).
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Agree: Its time for this to end, the vandals who continue to slander and bring about Fabrications as a replacement for Facts and Truth. The poster Vedexent has done nothing other then make personal threats and attacks aimed at me and has yet to provide a Reason and Cite his source's for his outrageous remarks and blatant slander against other religious beliefs. He has given no proof nor evidence that would support his Fabrications he then gives the reason of its simply there and claimed only to back up the fact that certain information is a fabrication and without any Source other then spoken words, which clearly show the lack of etiquette this poster presents. It seems more likely that he has an agenda to slander and vandalize other Cultures without accepting Facts that are there and ignoring also my Citations and sources that I have presented within and outside the article.its time for this to end its a simple matter of choosing Fact over opinion and Myth, I have a belief that Wikipedia is a database of Human Knowledge and I will continue to have that belief, I also know that there are a number of Trolls and Vandals littering the articles within it and I will continue to Revert there slander, thank you--Marduk of Babylon


 * Disagree: I don't think the current version should stand. As an outsider to this dispute, I think it is clear that Marduk has been unreasonable although his point about child sacrifice is possibly defensible. Citations are needed.  I would like to see the website that has been provided by Marduk.  I understand that websites are not adequate sources but I'm curious whether the website might provide any citations?  Has anybody done a Google search on "Carthage" and "child sacrifice"?


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Disagree: anon/marduk is citing a website which specifically states (on its homepage) it does not accept the validity of any published work. Additionally, his deletion of cited material has been stated as being in dispute historically is tantamount to revisionist history. Whether or not child sacrifice happened, the claims of child sacrifice are frequent enough and supported by enough (potentially circumstantial) evidence that it has had an effect on perception of Carthaginian civilization. To not mention it leaves people wondering why the heck Carthage was so unpopular. The reader needs to understand that this campaign/reporting happened and what effect it had. The reader also needs to see the counter-arguments. the no wiki has a very good NPOV version (as an FA), the nl wiki does as well; my intent is to translate & see if that would improve the old version here, though as Richard states it wasn't bad either. Bridesmill 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree: Marduk seems to misunderstand the goal of Wikipedia. As the verifiability policy makes clear, articles should not attempt to determine "truth", but rather to reflect the consensus of reputable sources on the topic.  It's clear that most historians—even if they disagree with the child sacrifice theory—consider discussion of it to be necessary, so removing such discussion from the article is unacceptable. Kirill Lok s  h in 18:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Vedexent you disgust me at times, it is appernt now that anyone who will go against your rehtric and misbegotten myths will be called a troll, pathetic. Everyone please check the Edit history then check the IP you will see it is different from that of mine. Thanks for the laugh tho Vedexent. Anyone else who is reading this madness before you, Facts being challanged by Myth's if you have taken it upon yourself to bring truth to things please first unlike me create an account then cite your vote, thank you. ---Marduk
 * Disagree: By it's nature, Wikipedia suffers from a variety of biases, but editors should assume a biased article or section reflects uncorrected base material or benign ingnorance until it can be determined otherwise, rather than immediately launching a "counter-attack." The Carthage article had numerous problems, many of them due to specific anti-Carthaginian biases of the sort Mardukanon would hide. But as with many such articles, this one was getting better. Edits were made to convey the same facts in more neutral language, to remove or qualify older assertions which general expert consensus find insupportable, to add newer assertions with good citations of support -- in short to improve the article according to general Wikipedia guidelines. Mardukanon's version discards much of value (the content of a given belief may not be factual, but the belief's existence is always a fact). What it adds touches on relevent matters, but with details as problematic as anything it removes. It should be reverted. --Americist 19:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree: You should go with facts not myth. Hannibal
 * Comment: Am I the only only one who finds an anonymous user who uses the same rhetoric as anon/marduck, agreeing with Marduck, and signing themselves using the name of the person who is the subject of the other page that anon/marduck is involved in an edit war about, suspicious? :) Bad Marduck - you're not supposed to stuff the ballot box, you know? From WP:SOCK: Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Violating another guideline? - Vedexent 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 Lok s h in 20:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree - for the obvious reasons. I think the only reason Marduk hasn't registered an ID is in order to avoid various wp violations and eventually decrease the chance of getting himself blocked (which is extremely high). I think that says it all. Miskin 00:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Onther fabrication I see, well this is becoming more of a joke and a laugh then anything else. Other uses of IP? One question why are you lying? Could you explain that to me? Different IP adresses? No I have but only one ISP one Computer, of course I had forgotten the shrouded agend's people like you take. Iam starting to slowly lose interest in arguing with people like you and Vedexent, but have fun "Raving" anyway dont let me spoil your fun. Also id like to add note that its very much probable Vedexents Sock Puppetys are very much at work here, just something to leave to wonder I suppose, the very same reason iam refraining from responding to Vedexent as I had him tied in the begining, I found out what a complete idiot he is, as the old saying "Dont argu with idiots they will bring you down to there level and then beat you with experiance".-signed Marduk


 * 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)


 * Disagree Carthage should mention Roman Carthage, including both Cyprian and Belisarius. The major problem with the previous edit by Vexedent is the waffling on citizenship, and both versions have much the same text. Much of the material the anon includes on Carthaginian religion appears to be sourced (insofar as it is sourced) to Phoenicia, and should be a separate article. On child-sacrifice, I agree with Lokshin: widely made claims should be discussed, not suppressed; verifiable statements by debunkers should be part of the discussion. Septentrionalis 14:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Flame Contest Weee

 * Richard: Apart from an earlier insinuation that I should do marduk's work for them if they are not willing to put effort in themselves, you also insinuate that I am not "having good faith", but how much "good faith" is being shown by someone whose response to anyone who does not agree with them is to call them "Tolls", "Vandals", "complete idiot", "some worked up high school girl who just had her period", etc (ironically, marduck then turns around and says: "Vedexent you disgust me at times, it is appernt now that anyone who will go against your rehtric and misbegotten myths will be called a troll, pathetic." It seems to be standard tactic for any complaint leveled against marduck to then be reversed and used against anyone who doesn't agree with marduk.). How is someone who basiclly has ignored Wiki ettiquite, and the processes for third party arbitration, because it doesn't agree with their viewpoint, behaving better? I do not claim my responses have been perfect! Far from it! I have a short temper at times, I admit it, and some of the things I have said, and attitudes I have expressed would have been better left unvoiced. But can you read this talk page and seriously conclude that I am less tolerant and less fair than "marduck"? I know that there is no proof that Marduck sock-puppeted, but I think the circumstantial evidence makes it more than even money that it is. That is why I said suspicicious.


 * Given the response to the RFC and the Poll here, I don't feel "threatened" and I don't see any pressing need to invalidate an anon yes vote: the only people who seem to support anon/marduk's position is marduk and hannibal (Richard, feel free to correct me if you support "their" position); if indeed they are seperate (but very simular sounding) people. I'm not an idiot; I checked the IPs as well. I've been keeping an eye on marduck's IPs since the "edit war" started; I know the IPs are different. But as other people have noted, marduck has "tumbled addresses" repeatedly over a short period of time. As for his comment "No I have but only one ISP one Computer", that either demonstrates a misunderstanding of what is being claimed (an honest mistake), or outright ignorance of how computers work (and hey, not everyone who drives knows how an engine works either, so there is no shame in that).


 * Do I have an emotional investment in this issue? Yes, a little. But not because "I have to be right" but because someone is trying to "pull a fast one", and assumes we're all stupid enough to fall for it. And it was done pretty blatantly. Not blatantly enough to prove it, but come on! If you're going to try and trick me, at least make some effort about it, ok? I am annoyed that someone is not trying to work within the guidelines and processes of Wikipedia, and is trying to "shout the loudest and the longest" until they get their way. My 2-year-old does that. And then, to top it all off, turns around and accuses anyone who doesn't agree with Marduck of "raving". Marduk says he is not responding because I'm a complete idiot (remind me again which one of is using personal insults?); I havn't seen any evidence that they are capable of rational argument in response.


 * As a last note: marduck has repeatedly accused me of threats and personal attacks. I have asked a couple of times for him to provide links to some of these - as I don't trust quotes in this matter. I have recieved nothing. I assume this means that he is incapable of doing so. I am guilty of having a short temper about some things, and perhaps after the "heat" got up I held his edits to a more stringent "application of the law" than I would to a complete stranger. Perhaps some of my disdain for someone who uses emotion and insults instead of discussion leaks through. I'm human; I am not, and never will be, a Saint. But everything I have concretly claimed, I can back up if asked to (or I will retract it an apologize a point if I cannot). If and when marduk can back up his own accusations of "threats" and "personal attacks" by providing links to my own words then I will retract and apologize for them. Until that point, I will treat such "accusations" with all the concern I think they are worth: none. - Vedexent 23:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of words Vedexent, a lot of words and a lot of wining, is it then no wonder I try not to bother with someone like you. Unfortunately I don't make my living on the computer like everyone else I assume, I labor and work to bring home food and make sure I do have a home. I don't even have a measly 2 hours or just a descent 30 minutes to make long debates and get tangled with someone else like I used to, I still log on at work and Reverting your edits Reverting your Vandalism and making the citation here on talk:Carthage. It started out actually pretty good at first I had thought you were really here for the issue at hand and tried to be patient even tho I do have intolerance for ignorance. But then you began to show your true colors and instead of debating the issue of Sacrifice you started to lob Personal attacks directed at me not the issue, acting as a vigilantly that very thing that rips away order vigilantly actions, no wonder there is no longer any level headed debate here. So then it has become clear to me that your not here for the article or the edit's I have made but simply have a personal agenda against me, Tell me why are you hounding me around Wikipedia posting in every talk page of the articles I participate in? Why are you making mass deletions of my edits and then citing... Well to sum it all up: "I don't like you"--Signed Vedexent:. Is that it? You have no interest in the historical aspect of this, I don't have interest in debating to you why I don't like you because frankly I don't care nor do I know you and hopefully you feel the same way about me however your continued posts and reversions on this place and other articles sais otherwise: So to lob onther insult at you ill say this "Get a life": Its very clear on its meaning I think "Get a life" it means simply relax and take a nice cold shower or dump a bucket of ice on your head because you really need to calm down. You have given no other reason other then that you don't like the way I edit even tho my latest edit follows all the rules and meets all the criteria you still cling that your a hot head and you just simply like to make personal agendas targeting other people at times, which I think is silly.


 * Do I make personal attacks? Of course. Did I think vedxent is a disgusting person? Nahh, but he is acting pretty silly to me and even then I had planned to respond to him continually, but after seeing his comments and "Child acting" on onther article I just decided to ignore him again going back to my quote of the old saying, iam just not going to bother and he can stomp his feet and pout all he wants, my article now gives sources, cites sources and gives the facts and information on Carthaginian religion not Mythological Fictional tid bits certain people with Anti_Carthaginian biased are so bent on having there motives however is clear.


 * Again Vedexent I don't think your a person worth wasting my time with, iam bored of writing your name so iam going to stop right here.


 * To everyone else, it is not to late to change your vote, you would rather side with Myth then Facts? If so then I have wasted my time with wikipedia, I hope thats not true and Ill wait a little longer until this vote is finished and the people who havent casted, please cast now.
 * Signed Marduk


 * LOL - Vedexent 03:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha you really do enjoy being an idiot dont you, well iam just happy I finnaly shuted you up,.... guess thats that. LOL -signed Marduk


 * You just gotta get the last word in, don't you :) - Vedexent 03:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry ;) I try tho not to make it a habbit :). Well thats it 2 hours, cya- signed -Marduk


 * Alright guys, put a lid on it. Please observe WP:NPA.
 * Richard 07:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Citations
Marduk has claimed that he has provided numerous citations: my Citations and sources that I have presented within and outside the article.. Would he or she be so kind as to list them so that we can all be clear about them? List them in a WP:Cite format? At least so they can be located by other people, no need to do full bibliographic enties (Livy, Book 1 - possibly adding 12-51, or John Adam's Big book of rocks, etc.)

Like this...
 * 
 * 
 * others?

Perhaps this has been a rather large misunderstanding and we just havn't understood the references being provided - Vedexent 15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it would have been preferable to help Marduk rather than pound on him for being difficult (which he has been).


 * Here's what a quick Google search dug up:


 * This website presents both sides of the question.
 * http://phoenicia.org/childsacrifice.html


 * http://phoenicia.org/bibliogr.html
 * (referenced by the above page)


 * This one, too.
 * http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/carthage_life.html#child_sacrifice


 * This website has annoying ads but presents a "middle of the road" view

http://i-cias.com/tunisia/carthage02.htm


 * And here is the most scholarly citation I could find. In the Stanford Journal of Archeology, Brien Garnand comes down in favor of the view that Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice but, in the process, clearly documents the fact there is a long history of debate about the issue.


 * http://archaeology.stanford.edu/journal/newdraft/garnand/paper.html


 * I'm not saying that Brien Garnand's position is the gospel truth. I don't think you can understand this debate without understanding the history of the debate that Garnand provides.

Richard 16:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an NPOV article would have to discuss both sides of the question.

Does this article have potential to be a FA?
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)

Dido and Elissar
I wanted to ask about the "Dido" bit. Is this fact or mythology? I think the "Dido" bit is just something that Virgil made up for the Aeneid and is part of the "creation myth" for Carthage. If my inexpert opinion is true, then the "Dido" section should be moved to a separate section. Same question about Elissar, grandniece of Jezebel. Is this fact or mythology? If the only source is the Bible, then we need to take it with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that the Bible is all fabrication but not everything in the Bible has been confirmed as being true. Is there supporting evidence for the Elissar/Jezebel stuff?

If this Dido and Elissar stuff is not clearly fact, I propose that we move it to a section titled something like "Carthage in Classical Literature".

Richard 20:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The NO and NL articles both start with reference to Dido in the first para - "According to legend as passed on by Postinus, Carthage was founded by Dido after she fled from Tyrus" No further mention of her is made in those articles, but I think your class lit section has strong merit. Bridesmill 20:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Theoretically, any article has the potential to be FA ;) The Dido page here is just stuffed with a good bibliography, as well as links to many good etexts, including both classical and more modern literary treatments of the Dido legend. At least a place to start digging. I think the "historical fact" of Dido is a slippery as that of Romulus. The origin mytho-history of many of the mediterranean cultures clustered in the Bronze Age is very hard to classify as either myth or history. We have input from the writings of Junianus Justinus, and Appian as well - Vedexent 23:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For my own interest - do you have any information on who Postinus was? I did some Google'ing - but the best "hits" seem to be mirrors of the foreign language Wikis. - Vedexent 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the foggiest - translated from the NL wiki - the NO wiki doesnt mention this source. It may be 'Postinius'; but he doesn't come up too much either. I'll have a look on ebscohost when I get back to the office. Myth/history - not just the bronze age suffering from that one ;-) Bridesmill 01:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is precisely my point about Dido. I was pretty sure she was legendary like Romulus and Remus.  But the English version of the article doesn't make it sound like that.  If a reader knew nothing about Carthage or the Aeneid, that reader might infer from the article that she and Elissar had been real people.


 * There are lots of legendary people who may be based on real people but there is not necessarily a strong similarity between the legend and the real person. In these cases, we need to give the reader some indication that we are not talking about someone as clearly historical as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.'


 * Richard 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, not so sure about Dido - quite well documented - only the fuzzy line between history and legend remains, & IMHO it's on the legend side of the equation, but still germane to how Carthage fits in global context. This Postinus/Postinius individual is the one who has me curious - other than several wikis and several very obscure ghits, I can find nothing - hence will do some digging in meatspace & academic search engines.Bridesmill 15:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, a discussion of Dido is as valid to place in the Carthage article as a discussion of Romulus and Remus are in an article on Rome. However, is there any need to classify her in the article as one or the other? Rather than saying "Dido was...", or "The legend of Dido says...", just mention her as a product of the sources: "According to Virgil's Aenied (or the writings of Postinus), Dido is described as...". Sidesteps any "fuzzy" claims and lets the reader make up their own mind. - Vedexent 16:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but - by saying 'according to xyz', to a lot of people that implies that we are citing a fact (e.g. 'According to Pasteur, bacteria can be described as...'); in the case of Dido I think that scientific consensus is on the side of 'hasn't been proven/not supported by credible physical or documentary evidence' although a grain of truth arguably exists; I would prefer citing it as 'Legend recorded in the writings of xyz' or some such. I think to be honest, we have to state where things are hard facts and where some fuzziness exists and where there's more fuzzy than form. Bridesmill 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That seems the only appropriate tack in general. From personal recollection only at this point, there is evidence for the historicity of the "Elissar" personage and for her relatives in the royalty of Tyre, the "metropolis" of Carthage. What role she personally played in the founding of Carthage is not presently a matter of historical record -- history not being co-extensive with possibility. So it seems the article should neither credit her without qualification, nor consign her purely to myth. Her better-known Dido aspect seems to be only partly mythological, only because the remainder is fictional. The role she plays in the Aeneid seems to have orignated with Virgil. That doesn't mean it needs to be left out of this article, but detail probably should be reserved for the Dido article and for others dealing with the Aeneid. --Americist 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Again a bold face claim to historical accuracy: We dont know if Queen Dido Existed, Queen Dido of Phoencian Capital (Lebanon) and voaged to North Africa were she settled Carthage. We dont know if its a Legend so then we dont know if its true. She seems to have existed wether the Roman Fake version and the Greek Fabricated version of events doese make clear that these people have a way with "Long Lies" and "Streched Truth", but because we have no information from Carthage itself as in not even a measly little document as the City was mass murdered by the Romans we cant be sure of anything. What about the Berbers? Well they make it clear she did exist they have vaible historical records.. but ill leave that research to you. Perhaps when this vote is over and the thread is unlocked (That is saying if the turn out goes the right way towards TRUTH, then we can input Tid Bits that bring about a truthfull acounting of things. Signed Marduk

Page Protection
Just for curiosity sake, how long does the page protection last?Bridesmill 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent has asked that the page protection be lifted and changed to "semi-protection". This would prevent new users and anonymous users from editing. I have added my support to his request.

Richard 02:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I did. The request is Here if anyone wants to add comment to it - Vedexent 03:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

Received a response - Postinus was inerted into the NL wiki by an anon user who to date has not provided a source, unfortunately.Bridesmill 15:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cartago delenda est
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)

LOL- It also be nice to put alot of mention in the obliteration of those pesky iberian tribes, if the vote gotes well we can have all the mentions we want.--Signed Marduk

So, about this rebuilding Carthage...
Disclaimer: ''Sorry, I'm new to the contribution end of Wikipedia, so the functions & forms are foreign to me. I've also not been able to read everything on this talk page.''

I'm an undergraduate classicist writing a report/paper on Roman Carthage. I've got plenty of sources/citations, so I can provide some information that the page is lacking (i.e. information about Carthage after the Punic Wars, things like the Antonine Baths, amphitheatre, naval port, &c). My concern is that, being new here, I am not well able to write the additions. Can someone work with me? I've read the Wiki-help articles on how to write on Wikipedia, but honestly, I'm not comfortable trying to tackle something this big on my own.

I don't think I can write the actual entry, though. Can someone work with me on this? -W.

Welcome. You can always dump chunks of stuff here, or just post the references & outline of what you feel would help on the page. Bridesmill 00:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There used to be a section of the Roman occupation of the site. It was deliberatly removed by "Marduk of Babylon". As Brudesmill said, you can always drop chunks of text here - or even rough drafts into the article itself. Trust me - people will edit and polish if they don't like the way it reads. - Vedexent 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Expanding on what Bridesmill and Vedexent have said, I am currently partnered with a Mexican expert on the Aztec empire. He writes as best as he can in broken English.  I and other editors "clean up" behind him.  You are welcome to write what you can as best as you can and those of us who have this article on our watchlists will clean up after you if that seems to be needed.  Frankly, it's more important that you provide sources and citations than that you provide perfect prose.  Many of us can write but don't have familiarity with the academic journals.  Finally, if you really feel uncomfortable dropping text into the article itself, just put it here (i.e. Talk:Carthage with a request that it be cleaned up and put into the Carthage article.


 * Richard 04:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Page is unlocked. Now semi-protected.
Edit to your heart's content :) - Vedexent 00:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Verifiability of child sacrifice details?
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)


 * 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)

For those who missed it, this is what I found in a Tunisian travel 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... Miskin 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

Can someone archive chunks of this page?
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)