Talk:Ancient Carthage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

clearly some bad editorial choices have been made[edit]

Carthage, Ancient Carthage, History of Carthage, History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology? All these are articles with significant topical overlap, content duplication, poor maintenance, and limited mutual awareness between whoever has been developing them. I am not sure how this could happen, but it is certainly among the worse cases of WP:CFORK I have come across.

I suppose the first comment on this talkpage, "Why this page exists: Tho it was definately not a traditonal model, there was definately a Carthaginian Empire", speaks volumes about the level of editorial expertise that has gone into this. But why has this been allowed to go on festering since 2007? --dab (𒁳) 07:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I support History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and Ancient Carthage being merged with History of Carthage. Kashta (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I also support merging "History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology" and "Ancient Carthage" with "History of Carthage". I think I'm up to the task of rewriting the material, as I've recently rewritten the entire text of History of Lisbon with references, incorporating the scant material there previously, except for the very last section, "21st Century", which I'm working on now.
This "History of Carthage" project will be much easier, as I won't have to create the entire text, and many of the refs have already been found. If editors can be patient, I will complete the work, then do some bold editing, as long as no one objects. I am open to suggestions. Carlstak (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Don't. History of Carthage is a history page, whereas this page is (or should be) devoted to an overview of the state itself. A merge with Carthage is certainly in order since Ancient Carthage is by far the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC for that namespace. Carthaginian Empire was always more appropriate and permitted Carthage to deal with the city itself, but some armchair historians took it upon themselves to muck things up and you probably can't get a consensus to restore it at this point.
History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology is just ridiculous and should of course be merged, though. [edit: However, in the main, it should be remerged to the articles branching out of History of Tunisia.] — LlywelynII 17:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm concerned by the current situation. It's not clear why there is a Carthage and a Ancient Carthage. Information in both articles appears to deal with the same place, which is known under the name Carthage. The term "Ancient Carthage" is not one I'm finding appears often in sources. I'm equally concerned that there is a History of Carthage and a History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology when both deal with the same topic. I'm also concerned with History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture which reads like an essay. I'm unclear if this is an appropriate encyclopaedia topic. It gets around 6 views a day which indicates that it is not an essential topic. My suggestion is to merge Ancient Carthage into Carthage; and merge History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage. Far better for the general reader to have one informative and well written neutral article on the history of Carthage, rather than three which repeat information and present the reader with too much information. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
User:SilkTork, support the merge of Ancient Carthage and Carthage, since the names are currently nonsensical and ancient Carthage is the PRIMARYTOPIC. If the modern Tunisian settlement deserves a separate article, it doesn't belong at the main namespace. There was a rationale for the separation: "Ancient Carthage" was originally Carthaginian Empire while "Carthage" dealt with the city itself. That made sense but was nixed by historians who objected to that terminology as a form of virtue signaling to each another. Since they're basically right that current historians are oversensitive to the term out of loathing towards 19th-century Europe, we're stuck with covering both topics at a single article or with splitting our treatment of what is and has always been known as the Carthaginian Empire into Kingdom of Carthage and Carthaginian Republic.
That said, Carthage didn't actually hold all of modern Tunisia's territory and the History of ancient Tunisia does deserve its own existence. History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture are terribly named and might need merging back into History of Punic-era Tunisia or even History of ancient Tunisia, but not History of Carthage. — LlywelynII 20:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The articles Ancient Carthage and History of Carthage appear to contain similar information. Does the existence of both of them make sense to historians of Carthage? Are the terms Punic Republic and Phoenician Republic (which appears as part of the explanation of the Carthage article) used by historians? Mcljlm (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


Carlstak, "was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage. During the 7th to 3rd..." might be correct English but it distorts the actual meaning of Ancient Carthage. because the period separates the sentences that mention Carthage as a City-State and an Empire. Since as soon as the period ends at the sentence that says Carthage was a City-state, it pretty much wraps up the definition, or so it seems. So, may I suggest the following alternatives?

  • 1"was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, during the 7th to 3rd..."
  • 2"was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, and during the 7th to 3rd..."
  • 3"was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, during which the 7th to 3rd..."
  • 4"was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, that during the 7th to 3rd..."
  • 5"was the Phoenician city-state of Carthage, which during the 7th to 3rd..." (the "so-not proper English" version)

Or change the sentence for all I know, but as long as these sentence remain the same, I don't agree that there should be a period between these two sentences. (N0n3up (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC))

I've been busy on another project and haven't had a chance to get back to this. Your own talk page shows that you have a history of disputes and edit-warring with other editors over matters of English grammar and syntax, and have even been blocked because of it. I would suggest that whatever your other skills, these are not your strong points. I have returned the text to its long-standing form before your edits introduced a lack of clarity in its meaning. Carlstak (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks Carlstak, please concentrate on edit, not editors. You keep saying there are errors, when there are none (at least the second version of my edit). I already fixed all the grammatical errors and sounds perfect and up to stadards, whereas your edit blurs the actual meaning to the definition of ancient carthage. (N0n3up (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
I saw you opened a discussion above. Next time, let me know since I opened this without even knowing of the discussion you opened. (N0n3up (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC))
You should have gotten an alert when I used your username link (twice). The left notification button at the top of your special user page turns red when someone mentions you, just as if I pinged you. Carlstak (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It didn't show up in my notification for some reason. My apologies. (N0n3up (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
  • I don't think it's worth you guys arguing over this page, as I'm not sure we'll be keeping it. The situation regarding our articles on Carthage and Tunisia has been a little messy for a while, and we are in the process of sorting it out. As we now have an article dealing with the modern settlement (Carthage (municipality)) it is likely we'll be merging Ancient Carthage back into Carthage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I applaud all the work you've done on merging and consolidating the various and redundant articles on the subject, SilkTork, and I support merging "Ancient Carthage" with "Carthage". Considering that I spent a lot of time researching and finding sources for this article (there were only 18 refs when I started, versus 171 now), I am concerned that all that work not be consigned to oblivion. I hope you will be able to save as much of it as possible. Carlstak (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
In the merging done so far I have kept the bulk of the original text, and placed attribution notices on those articles in which the text was placed. During the course of ongoing editing the original text is likely to be further amended as that is the way with Wikipedia. Additionally, as part of the concern is that the articles which were merged had an undue focus on the Berber people which distorted the facts, this needs to be addressed, and that means some of the original text will be adjusted to give a more accurate overview of the situation. I've not looked in depth at this article yet, but from looking it over briefly it seems pretty good, and it may well be that the bulk of this article will simply replace what is at Carthage. Also, as the title is a viable search term, we'll be keeping the title as a redirect, unlike titles such as "History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology" which are not a viable search term. They were created just for the Wikipedia articles, and are misleading and potentially confusing, so are being removed from mainspace; this means they will gradually disappear from Wikipedia mirrors where they are creating some distortion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, that sounds like a good plan. Thanks, SilkTork. Carlstak (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
SilkTork, I agree with you that this isn't worth arguing over. The edit clearly specifies that Ancient Carthage was a Phoenician City-State and it's empire, Like Rome is a city, and Ancient Rome was its empire or anything related to it (thus the denonym: Roman, Carthaginian). Whereas Carlstak's edit implies that Ancient Carthage was simply the city itself, which wasn't like this, otherwise we wouldn't have a Wikipedia article about the ancient city itself (see: Carthage). Although the merge you mentioned might be a good Idea, but if that's the case, we should keep in mind that Ancient Carthage was a civilization that encompassed a wider spectrum. Not a city but also an imperial civilization. Since the city is one thing and the empire is another, I think we should simply state that it was a civilization in the top lead. That's why you have articles like this: Rome, Roman Empire and Ancient Rome.
And Carlstak The way you went ahead toward my personal information and blasted about me not understanding grammatical errors (Personal attack), not to mention, modifying the discussion by adding your responses between my posts to "make it look" as if we actually had a dialogue speaks volume that you're not being serious about improving this article. You said there was a grammatical error in the edit, so I fixed it. Now, before you hit the revert button, I wan't you to explain to me where exactly does the error lay in. Since there is literally none. And please concentrate on edit, not editors. (N0n3up (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
I am going to put up a merge notice on this article so we can have a formal consensus. After that all the arguments on here will be past history. The advice on WP:PERSONAL is to ignore personal remarks. We also have advice on WP:EDITWAR which says that editors should seek consensus rather than reverting. As a guide, if two different editors revert what you have done, it's best to discuss before continuing to try to enforce your idea. I looked at what Carlstak had written, and while it was harsh and unnecessary, and he would have done better to comment on the edit rather than the editor, it could be argued that it was an observation rather than a personal attack. Anyway, rather than have it in plain view to keep annoying you, I have archived it, and at the same time removed unnecessary personal comments so the archive history shows only the essential concern. It's a minor point, and one that is now best left alone. For either of you to continue picking at this matter will only create distress, possibly drag in and waste other editors' time, and likely lead to sanctions for someone. Let's concentrate on building the encyclopedia not on having personal fights. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Article fix[edit]

Why does the infobox look messed up all the sudden? (N0n3up (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC))

You need to ask that on the talkpage of the template: Template:Infobox former country. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
SilkTork Does that mean it show the same in your computer, or is mines just malfunctioning? (N0n3up (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC))
The fault is in Template:Infobox former country, which is the template for the infobox. It's not a fault in the article, so nobody reading this article will be able to fix it. I don't understand template code, so I can't fix it. You would need to ask on the talkpage: Template talk:Infobox former country. The fault is probably as a result of this edit. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. I had a close look at the code, and worked out the problem, and that appears to have fixed it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
SilkTork Thanks bro ;) (N0n3up (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC))