This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Tunisia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‹ The template below (WikiProject History) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›
|
The contents of the Talk:History of Carthage/History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology page were merged into History of Tunisia on 10 April 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 12, 2004. |
For anyone interested, there is a discussion regarding merging History of Punic-era Tunisia: chronology and History of Punic-era Tunisia: culture into History of Carthage being held at Talk:History of Carthage#Merge. There is a new suggestion that material from those articles could be merged into History of Tunisia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article 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 11:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right: 1942–1980
Wrong: 1942-1980
We settled this in 2005. I thought we'd nearly fixed the problem by about a year later. But it seems it will be here in force forever. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that my attention has been drawn by the recent dash conversions to page numbers in the references, I've noticed that instead of the usual "p" or "pp" preceding page numbers, there is instead the word "at". I've seen this peculiarity in only a handful of other WP articles, and never in any book or any scholarly (or otherwise) article. Is this acceptable WP format? I wonder if there's some sort of tool that would convert all these peculiar "at"s to proper "p"s and "pp"s? It would be great if there were such a tool (but I doubt it) as there are just too many of them to change manually. Akhooha (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section probably need updating as it cites figures which are a decade or more old. However I'm not even sure if ts section is really necessary Oman article abt the history of Tunisia - perhaps it belongs in the main 'Tunisia' article? Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The section in the article on the Muradid beys includes a map showing the distribution of Altaic languages. This has some tangential relevance to the spread of Turkish rule in Tunisia, but only very tangential. As the map shows, Tunisia does not fall within the distribution area of Altaic languages. I suggest this map should be removed. Mccapra (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Tunisia. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Tunisia. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I haven't really engaged much with Wikipedia editing in the past, so I'm sorry in advance if I commit some kind of faux pas. However, in reading this article, some of it does not appear to me to fully abide by Wikipedia's policy of presenting information from a neutral POV. For example, this is from the section on the Constitution of Carthage: "[Hannibal's] political opponents cravenly went to Rome and charged Hannibal with conspiracy" (emphasis mine).
This is maybe a slightly separate issue, but the paragraph after that starts with the following, which sounds more like an essay than something I would expect to find on Wikipedia: "The above description of the constitution basically follows Warmington. Largely it is taken from descriptions by Greek foreigners who likely would see in Carthage reflections of their own institutions. How strong was the Hellenizing influence within Carthage?" and it goes on in this vein. I'm putting it here because I think this style of writing could be said to be persuasive writing, which would also not count as neutral.
I don't really know anything about this subject (hence why I'm reading the Wikipedia article about it), but thought this was worth highlighting for anyone who is more qualified to work on it. Toprat (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]