Talk:History of Carthage

Date of foundation

"...it is most likely that the city was founded sometime between 846 and 813 BC." How do we know that? Apparently, every historian relatively close to the event agrees(agreed) that Carthage was founded sometime between 1234-1215 BC, but every modern historian says otherwise. Curiouser and curiouser... --LutherVinci (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC).

The accounts by ancient historians are necessarily legendary, as there could hardly have been primary sources reaching that far back available to them. Therefore their claims are distrusted by modern historians. Also, we have archaeological data about the city and knowledge about Phoenicia itself (which did not reach its zenith until 1200) that the ancients did not have, which make their date implausible.

Just because somebody lives closer to an event in the remote (even for them) past doesn't mean they necessarily know more about it, quite the opposite. It all comes down to the sources for their claims and conjectures. Also, people often have agendas that make their reports biased and unreliable. Scepticism about historical accounts is a basic principle of historical research. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Concerns have been raised regarding the existence of History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and its sister article History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture. There is a discussion at Talk:Ancient_Carthage#clearly_some_bad_editorial_choices_have_been_made. There was a prior merge suggestion, which was rejected by the article creator. The articles duplicate the topic at History of Carthage, but read as essays. Sentences such as "Lack of contemporary written records make the drawing of conclusions here uncertain, which can only be based on inference and reasonable conjecture about matters of social nuance" indicate a POV - for who is speaking here? Who is wishing to draw conclusions and make conjectures? There is the suggestion of the stance of the author in the opening sentence of the chronology article which indicates that it "introduces the region during its long period ... under the sway of a Semitic civilization from the eastern Mediterranean". It appears the author wishes to discuss not the history of Carthage, but the occupation of Tunisia by a Semite people. It appears to wish to emphasise the Berber people, and place them more firmly in the picture. Looking at the comments on Talk:History_of_Punic-era_Tunisia:_chronology by the article's creator, this is borne out by what he says there. So this article is both a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it duplicates History of Carthage and a WP:POVFORK as its intention is to present the same information "from different contexts". We don't do several articles with different views on Wikipedia; per WP:NPOV we present all significant views in the one article, and we give each view appropriate coverage per WP:WEIGHT. Taking an entire article to give the fringe perspective of the indigenous people of Tunisia to Carthage is a little excessive, though some of the material could be summarised and used appropriately in History of Carthage and perhaps in Carthage as well. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork's sensible suggestions, as well as his comments about point-of-view forking. I had intended to do some sort of merging of the articles to address the unnecessary redundancy, but lost heart when I took a good look at the material across them. It's more work than I want to take on. Someone else will have to tackle the rewriting, but I will be glad to assist with editing. Carlstak (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple articles and merits of plurality[edit] - From Talk:History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology, 7 Feb 2015. Elfelix (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The several articles have been co-existing since May 2008.

In January 2010 History of Carthage contained about 60,000 bytes.

In January 2010 History of ancient Tunisia contained about 170,000 bytes. This article was the the predecessor of, and more-inclusive than, the Punic-era articles.

In August 2010 the split-off History of Punic-era Tunisia contained about 120,000.

In August 2010 History of Carthage contained about 60,000 bytes. At that time another article Ancient Carthage contained about 17,000 bytes, which article had been started in 2010, evidently from the merger of two recently begun articles.

In February 2015 History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology contained about 68,000 bytes, while History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture contained about 95,000 bytes.

In February 2015 History of Carthage contained about 62,000 bytes, while Ancient Carthage contained about 83,000 bytes.

The Punic-era" articles from their origin in 2008 have been part of the series of articles introduced by History of Tunisia.

The articles are presented from different contexts. Continuity, with more attention to the pre-existing and post-existing peoples, is more apparent in the Punic era articles. In the economic dimension the different focus is evident. These multiple views give to the Wikipedia reader the ability to form a parallax apprehension of the historical situation. Use of the Wikipedia header tags "main article" or "see also" will serve to sufficiently alert the reader to the possibilities. Otherwise, much nuance and the merits in plurality would be lost by 'cannibalizing' one article for the sake of another. Elfelix (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Above copied from Talk:History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology, 7 Feb 2015. Elfelix (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DISCUSSION: 1. The putative "POV" (mentioned by Tea Time) is rather an objective description of the incomplete nature of the sources existant on the subject, a fact which is mentioned in more than one book. It is incorrect to say it is announcing a license for inserting POV. If you think the historical record is complete about ancient Carthage, that would be a minority opinion among historians and in itself perhaps POV unless substantiated. 2. To say, "It appears the author wishes to discuss not the history of Carthage, but the occupation of Tunisia by a Semite people," would be similar to saying that the History of the United States is not about the occupation of America by a European people. 3. Please read the above 7 February 2015 post, which shows that the History of Punic-era Tunisia substantiallly predates, rather than duplicates or forks off from, the History of Carthage article. Elfelix (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in the discussion. I'll answer your three points as best I can.

1. POV is "point of view". We have a policy that deals with points of view in Wikipedia articles - it's at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. What we are looking to do is to have a neutral point of view - one that doesn't take sides, but summarises the sources available without giving undue weight to any of them. We do not take a stance, or have an opinion, such as on the quantity or quality of sources. When an article speaks from an editorial stance it is directing the reader, and persuading the reader to accept the editor or author's own point of view. History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology is argumentative, such as in an essay: "Phoenicians would surely inspire some resistance by the Berbers, although in warfare, too, the technical training, social organization, and weaponry of the Phoenicians would seem to work against the tribal Berbers." This argumentative speculation is unacceptable in a Wikipedia article. The History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology article appears to be attempting to deliver some of B. H. Warmington's personal opinions on sources rather than gather, summarise and present the main facts of the topic. If the article were to be called B. H. Warmington's opinions on Carthage and historical sources then the intention would be clearer, but it proceeds as though the viewpoint presented is standard, even though it is considered dated and inaccurate - see this reddit discussion for a little more insight. The views in that discussion are an opinion, the same as Warmington's views are an opinion. And we do not even want to get involved in such a discussion, as it is an academic discussion on sources. What we are aiming to do is summarise the history of Carthage for the general reader. Speculation and discussion on sources is not our business, unless that becomes notable in itself.

2. Wikipedia summarises the main points of a topic. Conventionally the history of Carthage is about Carthage itself, not about the Berber people. Our article on the Berbers is a more appropriate place to discuss in detail the Berbers' relationship with Carthage; though some mention of the people, and a link to the Berbers article would be appropriate. Exactly how much of the Berbers should be mentioned in an article on Carthage would be a matter of editorial discussion. It seems to me to be inappropriate that History of Carthage has nothing on the Berbers, while History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology has too much - which is one of the reasons why a merge is needed.

3 The date an article was created is not important. However, the main article, Carthage, was created by (interestingly) Larry Sanger in 2001: [1]. (Larry Sanger is one of the founders of Wikipedia, and the author of our NPOV policy.) There have been split offs from that main article over the years, such as History of Carthage, Ancient Carthage, History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology, and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture. We encourage articles to be split off in certain circumstances, so splitting an article off is not in itself a bad thing. But what we don't want is articles to be split off that simply duplicate material, or that present the topic from a different perspective. With History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology, and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture, we have splits that are both duplications (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) and different perspectives (WP:POVFORK).

I hope this helps clarify the position. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: It's obviously a mess, the namespaces of History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture and History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology are clearly monstrosities, and User:Elfelix's comments, as noted, are mostly poorly-taken.

Certainly, (a.) those two articles should be moved somewhere else, even if only to similar titles that are in line with our standard formatting, something like History of Punic-era Tunisia and Culture of Punic-era Tunisia. (b.) They should probably be remerged as History of Punic-era Tunisia (Better still: History of ancient Tunisia) since discussion of the era covers both its events and its culture and (c.) articles about the history of the region of Tunisia have a patently distinct WP:SCOPE from those dealing solely with the history of the polity of Carthage. That's a well-taken point that has nothing to do with verbotten pov pushing.

Rather than remerge those two articles, (d.) an alternative would be to dissolve them and partition all the material among articles dealing with the specific cultures and polities covered: Carthage and various Berber states and peoples. (e.) That would have to have to take into account the fact that such articles already existed, however, and ran so long that these articles (however badly named or handled) were cut out from them in the first place. — LlywelynII 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, this discussion is in the wrong place. The two overarching articles here are History of Carthage and History of Tunisia. Specific details on Carthage might be merged here, but their overall treatment grew out of and is part of History of Tunisia. Discussion should move back to Talk:History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology or be taken up at Talk:History of Tunisia. — LlywelynII 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Good points made. Best to keep discussion in one place rather than moving it around. I thought this an appropriate place as this is the target I intended, and I have notified users and projects of the discussion taking place here. Good idea, though, to leave notices at the other talkpages informing interested parties that a discussion is taking place here.

From previous comments made, there has been concern with the two Punic-era articles for some time as they do not meet our guidelines and policies. The only dissenting voice has been the creator, whose defence of the articles is not policy based - indeed, runs counter to policy.

While I think there is enough consensus for an action to be taken to dissolve them, I would like to wait a little longer to see if there are any other dissenting voices, and what other suggestions people make.

Based on discussions so far, my thinking is along these lines: The article titles are not useful, and indeed do not attract readers - the articles have had barely any readers in their history, so the titles could be deleted, while usable content could be merged, as Llywelyn says, into the most appropriate articles, be that History of Carthage, Carthage, Berbers, History of Tunisia, or whatever other article is appropriate. Care should be taken during any such merge that only appropriately sourced facts are merged. Editorial opinion and speculation should not be merged. And, given Warmington's books are considered out-dated, and his views are somewhat controversial, it might be worthwhile to check on more recent studies for a comparison or an updating when considering merging material based on any of his books. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just been looking at History of Tunisia and related articles. The situation needs improving as there is no article at History of Tunisia - instead it has some notes on the weather and geography, a brief outline, and then links to other articles, but without appropriate summaries. The series of links lead to articles which tend to have poorly written lead sections, so even after following the links the reader is not given an easy guide to the history of Tunisia. When there is a mess on this scale I can see why people have not done something - there is so much work to be done it is daunting. I do think it's time that people got together and worked collaboratively to build these articles and improve the reader experience. Whatever happened in the past that led to this is over now, and folks should move forward and make appropriate improvements. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have left notices on talkpages of other history of Tunisia articles; in doing so I noticed we have a History of French-era Tunisia article as well as a French protectorate of Tunisia article, and we have a History of Roman-era Tunisia article and a Africa (Roman province) article. These should also be considered as needing merging; the Roman-era one is already being discussed at Talk:Africa_(Roman_province)#Merger_proposal. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks to me that the splitting of History of Tunisia into several articles was well meaning, but not appropriately carried out according to guidelines, leaving the parent article sorely depleted. I think the first stage is simply to roll back the parent history article to before the split, and work on it from there. The splits also created a few duplicate articles which the creator was naturally unwilling to merge, as he felt he wanted to deal with the histories from a particular perspective, unaware that treating the same topic from different perspectives is against policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I have restored history of Tunisia to the condition it was in before being split into several articles. The size is too large to read or navigate easily, so needs to be reduced. I will work on this over the next few days, and any help would be appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Of course this should be merged. "History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology" is not how to title history articles. It is redundant in at least three ways. "Punic-era Tunisia" is called "Carthage", "History of Punic-era Tunisia" is called "History of Carthage", and "History of Carthage: chronology" should be called "History of Carthage" until we have a really, really complex coverage on questions of pure chronology that absolutely needs its own page. Content such as

"Technological innovations and economic development in the eastern Mediterranean, Mesopotamia, and along the Nile, increased the demand for various metals not found locally in sufficient quantity"

do not address any question of chronology, and is clearly misplaced under the title of "chronology". This is simply "History of Carthage", and spreading it out on a half-dozen randomly-titled pages is simple WP:CFORK.

--dab (𒁳) 07:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is sufficient rationale under policies and guidelines and common practise to merge, and there is consensus after a widely advertised discussion has been open for more than seven days to merge, so we can proceed with the merging. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply two

1. POV evidently rests on this criteria: articles to be based on published sources, in a presentation that is "fair and balanced". This may solve well over half the cases involved. Yet, beyond that, difficulty is readily apparent. Some published sources, many will agree, are superior to others. Who decides which is which, or how to weigh the consequent result? So, beyond the many elementary cases and issues, the POV rules are problematic. They present an admirable theory of cultural values. They fall short, however, in giving criteria to resolve disputes among opposing parties who each submit articles totally based on published sources. As an aside, thank you for the AskHistorians link.

2. Here, there is a different order of fundamental disagreement. It regards which topics to include in which article.

If one considers the region as it passes through time, and a given article being concerned with one such period of time, then perhaps all the people living there then should be included. But if one considers the goal to be 'A History of Carthage' clearly Carthaginians should be privileged over other people. This appears to be the position of SilkTork and others. Accordingly, if Berbers are to be principals in any article, it should be a Berber article. But this is but a deduction from a premise, a premise which reflects a tradition, deriving from an ancient Rome-centric, ancient Levant-centric stance about Carthage. Nonetheless, a defensible premise.

The multiple outlooks among current North Africans might include different stances about how to treat the conquered people and the people of the hinterlands of Carthage. Forming a large share of the population, constituting a latent force in the polity, should they nonetheless be passed over with scant mention? Surely, the Punic-era articles also praised the Phoenician accomplishments.

The region now called Tunisia, after Carthage, saw the emergence of Massinissa and Juba II. The Carthaginians eventually disappear. When Rome fell, Berber kingdoms again arose. Several centuries after the Arab arrival, Islamic Berber states held sway. So, in reading a continuous history of the region, a 21st century modern might want to include the substantial and continuous presence of the native people during the Punic-era, no matter that there were sharp social distinctions and separate ways of life. Au contraire, there are the inherited traditions. So I vote for the status quo, allowing each a place.

Probably I've done no better than SilkTork has done in persuading me of his position.

Of course, I wish the best to all participants, that the article, and articles, turn out well. Wikipedia does further human understanding, the usual way, two steps forward, one back. . Elfelix (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Elfelix. I understand that you wish to have two articles on the same topic, each with a different viewpoint, but that is not how Wikipedia arranges things. While doing some work on Carthage and Tunisia articles as part of the preparation for merging, I noted your contributions. You are a significant contributor in this area, and you have knowledge of the history. Your enthusiasm and work ethic has to be commended. I will give you a barn star for what you have done so far - much of your work will be kept, and will be used as the basis for future developments of the ancient Tunisia and Carthage articles. The issue we have is not with your involvement in Wikipedia - that is very good, and we wish you to continue, but with how some of what you have done does not meet our guidelines. For every user/editor/contributor to Wikipedia there is a process of learning how to do things. Learning how to use wiki mark-up, learning how to layout an article, learning about our notability and inclusion criteria, learning about consensus, etc. All of us are learning all the time. And sometimes we need to discuss with each other to decide the best way forward. In this situation it was clear that there was a problem, and this had been raised in the past. With such clear cases we sometimes simply merge articles together without the need to discuss, but as I noted that you had resisted previous attempts to merge, I felt it best to get clear consensus before moving forward. What has slowed down this whole process is that there are not many contributors working in this area, so there hasn't been a great deal of attention paid. It is part of Wikipedia that some topics get more attention than others, and recent events, and popular figures get a lot of attention, while noble subjects like the history of Carthage get sadly neglected. You are the main contributor to this subject, so I do hope you will continue to work in this area, learning more about Wikipedia guidelines as you go along. I am willing to help out. I have a selection of books from my local library on Carthage and the Punic Wars, and intend to help work on those articles, though my personal circumstances are inhibiting my involvement at the moment. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Carthage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207015451/http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24411&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer to http://www.ins.nat.tn/fr/rgph2.1.commune.php?code_modalite=24411&Code_indicateur=0301007&Submit3=Envoyer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629212917/http://website.leidenuniv.nl/~jongelingk/projects/neopunic-inscr/puninscr.html to http://website.leidenuniv.nl/~jongelingk/projects/neopunic-inscr/puninscr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dishekel hispano-cartaginés-2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)