This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems oddly NPOV -- pro-gallant Romans and anti-untrustworthy Carthaginians. Can we have a little more evenhandedness after 2,200 years? -- Michael K Smith Talk 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
From the Hannibal article: "In light of Hamilcar Barca's cognomen, historians refer to Hamilcar's family as the Barcids; however, scholars debate whether the cognomen Barca (meaning "thunderbolt") was applied to Hamilcar alone or was hereditary within his family."
Since there is an article on the Barcid family might as well let that take care of it. The brothers' article names don't include it and usage keeps the brothers' names free of it. So until irrefutable evidence to the contrary, cognomen it is. Manytexts ( talk) 04:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this statement original research? Are there any sources out there that support it? It seems like original research to me. I think it's best if we remove it (unless relevant sources are provided, of course), and I plan to do so, unless there are any objections. Best, -- Spivorg ( talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The revision that questions the well-known and long assumed derivation of "Barcino" (written in Greek-transliterated Iberian as "Barkeno") cites a source which, in fact, says nothing like what the contributor of the revision is contending it says - does not even imply it. Considering the time lines, that place-name being attested on coins from the "last decades of the 3rd-century B.C." belies neither that the town could have been named/renamed in honor of Hamilcar or the Barcids, nor that Hamilcar himself could be considered to have "founded" it by enhancing its significance as a settlement or port. Seems rather to bolster the traditional opinion. Neither the cited source nor the contributor offers up an independent lexeme in ancient Iberian with a root like "bark*" or "barke*" that would support the contributor's apparent bias that the name is other than from Phoenician. Is it just the thrill of iconoclasm with this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.136.34 ( talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
in the article's old spelling and its supposed meaning both need cites here and at the Hamilcar article. [Meaning corrected, with cite.] Also, don't use the Punic script directly in the English sentences and abjad transcriptions go in small caps, not italics. — LlywelynII 05:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Just take a look. can someone fix? 2600:1009:B021:7B3:E044:78B6:C497:B6FA ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems oddly NPOV -- pro-gallant Romans and anti-untrustworthy Carthaginians. Can we have a little more evenhandedness after 2,200 years? -- Michael K Smith Talk 18:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
From the Hannibal article: "In light of Hamilcar Barca's cognomen, historians refer to Hamilcar's family as the Barcids; however, scholars debate whether the cognomen Barca (meaning "thunderbolt") was applied to Hamilcar alone or was hereditary within his family."
Since there is an article on the Barcid family might as well let that take care of it. The brothers' article names don't include it and usage keeps the brothers' names free of it. So until irrefutable evidence to the contrary, cognomen it is. Manytexts ( talk) 04:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Is this statement original research? Are there any sources out there that support it? It seems like original research to me. I think it's best if we remove it (unless relevant sources are provided, of course), and I plan to do so, unless there are any objections. Best, -- Spivorg ( talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The revision that questions the well-known and long assumed derivation of "Barcino" (written in Greek-transliterated Iberian as "Barkeno") cites a source which, in fact, says nothing like what the contributor of the revision is contending it says - does not even imply it. Considering the time lines, that place-name being attested on coins from the "last decades of the 3rd-century B.C." belies neither that the town could have been named/renamed in honor of Hamilcar or the Barcids, nor that Hamilcar himself could be considered to have "founded" it by enhancing its significance as a settlement or port. Seems rather to bolster the traditional opinion. Neither the cited source nor the contributor offers up an independent lexeme in ancient Iberian with a root like "bark*" or "barke*" that would support the contributor's apparent bias that the name is other than from Phoenician. Is it just the thrill of iconoclasm with this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.136.34 ( talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
in the article's old spelling and its supposed meaning both need cites here and at the Hamilcar article. [Meaning corrected, with cite.] Also, don't use the Punic script directly in the English sentences and abjad transcriptions go in small caps, not italics. — LlywelynII 05:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Just take a look. can someone fix? 2600:1009:B021:7B3:E044:78B6:C497:B6FA ( talk) 22:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)