Talk:Carthage

Carthage wasn't considered to be a part of Greece, either by its location or its founding. It was not a part of the "Greek" Empires established after the fall of Alexander the Great. Learn together 18:18, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I have to concur.-Historian 18:31, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the additional information. Please be aware that we use the common usage B.C. and A.D. when referring to dates. Learn together 03:57, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Hopefully not crossing a line here, but Donatism and Augustine were long after Carthage was no longer a nation, and honestly have no place in this article unless they came from Carthage itself. Recommend the information be put in their respective articles instead unless they have been already. -Eternal Critic

Further to the remark above...there is a lack of balance or something disjointed about this article. I am going to replace it. I hope noses won't be too out of joint. (By the way, Augustine was Bishop of Hippo, some 200 miles (give or take) west. Same province, different city.)AlanE 22:01, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

I fully endorse this new version. It is much more concise, better written overall, and its no longer a hodge-podge. -EternalCritic

I sometimes wonder why an article of only about 400 words needs "structure". In this case, it had structure (unlike the old version)...just not the super-bold headings screaming at you every 4 or 5 lines. It can be useful in a long involved article, but I think not necessary in something that is less that a Word document long. It's copying WP.

Carthaginian navies did not control the Mediterranean sea (sic). They controlled the Western Mediterranean (which is stated in the preceding paragraph). The Greeks, Egyptians, the powerful trading states of the Levant, and then the successor states of Alexander had a big say in the Aegean and eastern Med., That was their turf. AlanE 13:56, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

If you see updates you can make, then do so. That's the advantage of pooling knowledge and working together. I should point out there is a difference between navy commerce and military control. You may rework the wording as you see fit to show both aspects. As far as sections, they are generally the direction that the site goes with articles that can be broken in that fashion. There's no hard and fast rule as to what length that should take place, but remember also that we want our articles to be read by our target audience -- and that does include keeping their attention when they first bring up the page. In any case, there is certainly no insult meant when sections are added. It is not a commentary on your work or what you have provided, merely a choice in layout. Learn together 14:20, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

I know. I'm old fashioned that's all (And I have a sciatic nerve that gets me very crabby, especially at 4 in the morning.) I am used to reading good ol'fashioned books where the section headings don't smack you 'round the face and actually take your attention away from the text. I have no problems with additions, corrections, and what have you... if they are correct of course.

Request for citation

". (although archaeological evidence suggests about a century later). " I don't doubt this in the least, but would appreciate citation to back this.

Ok. Why didn't the citation work. I typed in What did I do wrong? AlanE 15:37, 24 October 2008 (EDT)