This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As I wrote on the talk page of user Elm-39 (he asked not to post info there):
You can go over every single change at the history section of the article. One of those changes would be * http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maltese_(dog)&diff=prev&oldid=267991313
There you can find out much on the content dispute.
It was narrowed up to these points:
I belive that it would be biased to mention Italy, Spain, Lyons, Malta and some other countries which have less to do with the dog and not to mention Mljet in the context of Dalmatia and Croatia.
Pietru il-Boqli is full of accusations and disruptive, he offended Tool2Die4. Pietru il-Boqli started his negative approach by name calling, like East European, Croatian, Yugoslav, Italian. He is the only one who sees my editing as problematic.
I cannot stress enought that Pietru il-Boqli deleted sourced information with his POV editing and that the diff [1] shows only his intervention.
Also I would like to mention that Tool2Die4 (also edited the article) stopped reverting my editing when I provided explanation of my editing on his talk page. Then Pietru il-Boqli offended him.
And finally, before I started editing the Maltese (dog) article it was completely Malta biased version which Pietru il-Boqli and some other editors (Tool2Die4 including) maintained.
Imbris ( talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any reason for reverting the article before both Pietru il-Boqli and myself started editing the article. I belive that, quoting you: "Darn, that would have been fun...", fun has nothing to do with it. Every sentence I brought into the article is sourced (though some sources have been deleted by Pietru il-Boqli).
By reverting the article to the point before Pietru il-Boqli and myself started editing the article would be less neutral than ever in its history. Previously reached agreements would be denied, like Talk:Maltese_(dog)/Archive_1#History.2FOrigins.
Deletion would bring nothing, I suggest that we contact the appropriate Wikiproject first.
Contrary to Pietru il-Boqli's position that "This article (woof woof) demonstrated no such nationalistic blemishes till you arrived on the scene" I must conclude that the article portrayed a nationalist Malta's POV which has been seen through by editors such as Gordon and La Fédération Cynologique Internationale. This revert will deeply worsen the quality of the article as it is today.
Imbris ( talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As indicated here, the article has been locked down for a week to end the editwarring. Please pursue constructive methods of dispute resolution. — Scien tizzle 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Enough with the sniping back and forth. Further unconstructive comments may merit editing restrictions. Either have a civil discussion over the contents of this article or completely disengage. — Scien tizzle 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC
Deletes sourced sentences and refuses to talk issues. Here is an example [2].
Let him now explain how is his behaviour not deleting sources?!
Imbris ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some interesting sources:
Source from 1851 [3]
Source from 1807 [4]
Imbris ( talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Pietru il-Boqli started deflecting sources from former Yugoslavia with his comment "Also... do Soviet sources meet NPOV?" (posted in an edit summary, can be read in the history section). I must warn him that Antun Gustav Matoš died before the Great War. Also I would like him to explain his urge to save sentences which www.fci.be doesn't recognize as valid? Imbris ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this list make clear of incivility?
Imbris ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Pietru il-Boqli ( talk · contribs) and Imbris ( talk · contribs) are both on enforced 24 hour breaks for now. Both of you should take Beeblebrox's advice. Kevin ( talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You guyd -do- know that Melita is the Latin name for Malta? There is no town in Siciliy called Melita.
Check it out =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.158.211 ( talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This page has been sysop protected for one month pending an RfC and dispute resolution. If consensus and/or resolution is reached, please request page unprotection at WP:RFPP or on my talk page. Tan | 39 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion on:
It was narrowed up to these points:
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
My responses. 1: Linking to Mljet is sufficient; no need to link to Croatia. The fact that this city is in Croatia is not really that interesting to people who want to learn about the breed of dog, and if they are curious about Mljet, they'll navigate to its article and learn about it. 2: From looking at other articles on dog breeds, only "other names" that are frequently used in English seem to be included. So we should include whichever names are frequently used in English when referring to the dog breed, but there is no need to include other foreign names. I know that " Bichon Frise" is French, but is the common name of the breed in English; if that is the case for "Bichon Maltaise" it should remain. As for the Croatian names, I'd need to be convinced that they are in common English usage, which seems very unlikely to me. 3: It sounds like the sourcing is too thin for that level of emphasis. I think the statement should be included, but qualified, e.g. "According to La Federation Cynologique Internationale, the name does not signify that the breed originates from the island of Malta". 4: I don't understand this question, I have no idea who Callimachus or Bochart are or their relevance. 5: The sentence about Publius is sourced and relevant to the breed's history. The other sentence, about the general association, seems reasonable too but needs sourcing. They can be put together, as a way of describing the breed's relation to the island of Malta.. but it seems like better structure to keep the sentence about Publius in a section focused on historical information. (BTW, your framing of this question is not neutral, please revise it.) 6: No. The poetry is important to talk about, but is not directly relevant to a reader of this article. I suggest the poetry be placed on Wikisource and linked to, for those who want to read it. It should certainly not be in a trivia section since those are deprecated in general. 7: What is the source for that sentence? I don't see one. I'm concerned that such a sentence would be only partially sourced: that is, sourced by examples of people taking for granted that the dog breed comes from Malta, that have an absence of proof. In order to be properly sourced, a source should be found that criticizes other writings for assuming the connection to Malta without proof. Mango juice talk 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia is absurd. In almost every country in the world, the Maltese is roundly taken to have originated from Malta. Breeding bodies in every country that I could find online have the exact same listing, and have for as long as I've been alive (which is more than I'd care to say). However, on Wikipedia, it turns into a childish flame war, and the actual article itself mentions Italy, Croatia, and France before even mentioning Malta (which should be the ONLY country listed). The damn article should just be taken down altogether if old wives' tales, conspiracy theorists, and national origin homers dictate the obvious beginnings of the Maltese dog. Just my two cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.254.7 ( talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel that Mangojuice should know Pietru il-Boqli attempted to insert information like "Many of Callimachus' theses have since been discredited by scholarly and archeological inquiry.", something about Sicilian town of Melita was populated by Maltese people and Kelb Malti (a clear hoax [4], because the speakers of the Maltese language use the term Kelb Malti to describe their national dog Il-Kelb tal-Fenek as well.) He was also responsible for maintaining the article as if the dog is flawless; obscuring all negatives such as the Australian-wide research which shows that the breed is Australian most unsatisfactory dog.
These are Utterly Absurd Editing as well as his accusations that Publius/Martial was ever omitted. What should be omitted is Pietru's editing which show clear Malta bias toward the issue. And Pietru (who claimed not interested in the article) must stop insisting to place the Publius/Martial content directly after POV sentences thus strengthening the claim of a one specimen over the entire historical breed. The flow of time and history should be of maximum importance and Pietru cannot change the course of history.
Imbris ( talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On reviewing a broad variety of sources, I think this dispute is quite muddled. There are three issues: (1) the actual origins of the dog breed, (2) the origins of the name and the breed's early history, and (3) the country most associated with the breed.
First, on the true origins of the dog breed, all the sources I looked at are in agreement that no one knows for sure, and many trace the origins well past the Greek/Roman period and mention Egypt, Phoenicia, and some mention the far east.
As for the way the breed's early history, there seem to be three theories about where the dog breed first got its name. Aristotle's writing was the first, before Callimachus, but he merely chose the name "canes melitenses," referring to Melita that could be the Adriatic island, the Sicilian town, or Malta. Callimachus apparently thought the breed came from the Adriatic island, according to one source in the Article, but apparently Queen Elizabeth's personal physician, when first writing about the breed, attributed it to Malta after Callimachus. So it seems to me that the similarity in names may easily have caused additional confusion. Finally, Strabo refers to the breed as coming from Sicily, a couple of hundred years later. Most recent sources acknowledge there is a dispute between these stories, and acknowledge all of them or some subset of them as possibilities. There is no consensus in the sources on this matter that I can see.
Finally, Malta is most associated with the breed; the sources all agree on this point. They don't always give any explanation as to why, but when they do, most point to other writings that refer to the dog as from Malta. Whether those writings were right or wrong, whether they refer to the breed's origins, early recorded history, or merely the source of individuals rather than the breed, is unclear. But the existence of the association is beyond doubt, and it's a long-lasting one, centuries old. Mango juice talk 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Both Pietru and I (I belive) know better than to claim having any sort of origin "master source". So imputing that origin is part of this dispute is beyond my comprehension. I know that some see certain sculptures in Egypt as the first source, but that sculpture(s) doesn't look anything resembling a reliable source. And then if you believe that Egyptian sculptures should be used as reliable sources (first to go under would be Pharaoh hound, and almost all dogs of the Mediterranean), if we should use that sort of sources as reliable. Also Asia is looked upon as a possible source rather than currently accepted Central Mediterranean Area. As for the name issue, we have agreed upon a formula presented by the F.C.I. so again complications have been made by Mangojuice. The dispute is not about determining the entire layout of the article up to the end of time. Aristotle is not a disputed issue, and as you said he is just the name creator, of the name that should go in the infobox (by all means). Callimachus had not apparently simply thought but had been an authority on dogs in that era (according by Briggs). And also stop phrasing that Callimachus was referenced by one source ony, he was referenced by his almost contemporary Pliny the Elder and latter authors.
On the Johannes Cajus, Doctor to H.M. the Queen Elisabeth I.
By Iiris Hyytinen (the President of the Maltese Club of Finland within the Finnish Toy Dog Association) Cajus: "reiterated Kallomacho but claimed that the breed originated in the fishing village of Melita in Sicily." So your interpretation is not correct, the good physician had not phrased his sentences as you put it (and from what source). You should really read what Iiris Hyytinen wrote, now seems deleted but Google saved us a version as it appeared on 24 Jan 2009 21:24:39 GMT. There she wrote: "Changing of the name Melita into Malta happened in England because Englishmen had quite uncertain knowledge about world beyond their own imperia. They did know Meleda but had no conception about Melita. There are no known traces of Maltese dog found on the island of Malta.".
Strabo thought that the two dogs he obtained in Sicily were the only of its kind left
Also I believe that simply because Malta was British possession that some reckless English writers deliberately produced such nonsense of the Maltese origin. The name was determined in the 1800's as written by Dan Rice.
First exposition of the dog was in 1862 in the UK. Kennel Club had decided that the variety shall be called Maltese, a dictum that must be accepted by the Fancy as written by William Drury.
And finally your supposition that Malta is whatever is clearly made up of not reliable sources such as different kennel clubs, breeder's personal blogs and websites, forums and internet cut-copy-paste from previously totally biased versions of the article on this Wikipedia. And we should use Google to determine everything, relevance, value, verifiability, content and last but not least content. I am not sure to agree with such logic as many of wikipedians also do not agree on internet as reliable source. Google (as a search tool) is very limited because we all do not live in America to have rich resources to digitalise and machine read our data. Is our data hence less important?
And finally about your supposition that all the sources agree, I could not believe to see such logical fault from a mathematician. English writers that point to some other English writers; that point to nothing is a loop that couldn't be construed as reliable sourcing and scientific referencing. Also your comment on centuries of lasting is rebutted by Briggs and Antun Gustav Matoš and writers from mid 1970's on. I am very, very glad to see that you have expressed such position because the future generations need to know why you commented in the way you did. Centuries long…
As for Strabo, try to find mythical Melita on Sicily, Italian Wikipedia doesn't answer the question what modern town, village should be proud to be called Melita in antiquity.
And Rule, Britannia! comes to mind because ruling the seas has nothing to do with Britons ever becoming slaves but has much, much to do with ruling the World. Please do not be offended but Iiris Hyytinen has a point which I reiterated, nothing to do with you personally, or Britons as a Nation, maybe its leadership and school curriculum/authorities.
Please comment:
And I the RfC is phrased as not demanding the names be put in the infobox.
Imbris (
talk)
02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat hard to tell since this "conversation" is so rambling. But:
1.Whether or not to mention the fact that Mljet is in today's Croatia
2. Whether or not to mention one of the Croatian names for the dog (French name included in the infobox)
3. Whether or not to mention the fact established by La Fédération Cynologique Internationale which says: "His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta" as the first sentence of the dog's standard.
4. Whether or not to include Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," also quotes Callimachus to be correct.
5. Whether or not to include this sentence "During the first century, Publius, the Roman governor of Malta, had a Maltese named Issa of which he was very fond." just after the sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea" thus strengthening the claim.
6. Whether or not to include in the history section the entire Publius/Martial poetry, or perhaps in the trivia section.
7. Whether or not to include sourced sentences like "English writers seem to have taken for granted that the dog we call Maltese originally came from Malta; but not one offers the slightest proof in support of the assumption." hence deleting the sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea"
Done -- Imbris ( talk) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the pictures in this article seem to be of a "puppy cut". Should there be one for the type of haircut seen in competitions? 209.218.223.158 ( talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please add bs:Maltezer, and correct hr:Maltezer. -- Smooth O ( talk) 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally your latest edits have been very informative; however, please take the time to re-read your edits before you save them. There are quite a few grammatical and orthography errors. I'll go through the article when I get a minute. Apart from your bizarre changes to the Malta link (I thought you had stopped your anti-Malta agenda?) your work seems very interesting. However, you have consistently ignored the comments given above after requesting them yourself! Asking for other editors to help and then ignoring them is hardly the best way forward. Pietru ( talk) 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Imbris, your outdated sources are utterly exposed in the comments above. Please read them and learn from them. Pietru ( talk) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is pure fecal matter.
A study in the USA (which I have yet to track down, I saw it decades ago) found that the vast majority of dog attacks (60+%) were by "small dogs", eg Jack Russell, Maltese, XX Terrier etc. The reason was neuroses brought on by being accidentally kicked all the time.
Malteses are supposed to be a "perfect" companion dog: so when they turn neurotic, they get no sympathy. In addition, Malteses are incredibly loyal (I don't see this in the Temperament section any more, which idiot wiped it?), so they react to what they percieve as threats to their humans.
122.200.166.84 ( talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maltese ancestors used for pig herding???????
The references given do not support the claim -- you will find it is almost certainly a minor vandalism, and it should be removed ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.84 ( talk) 13:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you lot of trolls cannot get your act together to put this article back to the factual info it used to be, I WILL.
STOP INSULTING each other, STOP POINT-SCORING.
There are a lot of people who would like to use Wikipedia as a reference, and they can't because all you lot want is to feed your stupid egos.
Wise up, wake up, and stop bringing Wiki into disrepute. 122.200.166.84 ( talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Malta was known as Malat by the Phoenicians. What was up with "Meleda" back then?
— Question by Pietru il-Boqli
You misunderstood. The màlat is supposedly a Semitic root of all the words containing it, in the meaning harbour, refuge, to escape
Melita means the same, a "place of refuge," Gesenius, p 92 ; Bochart, vol. iii. p. 500 (in some prints 499), Movers, in Ersch und Gruber, paragraph-sign iii., vol. xxiv. p. 349.
Melita in the Adriatic was described by Scylax, Agathemerus and Pliny the Elder as being near to Corcyra nigra but for the fuller account of it I refer you to Cluverius, Bochart and Ovid.
On the other hand Diodorus is the first to inform on Malta as a Phoencian settlement, by many sources.
Also we can find sources that speak of the Melite Illyrica and the Melite Africana. Melite Illyrica (Melitae, Melitene, Melitassa) was the first to be recorded in history under the name Melitae.
Bochart himself ranks Malta among the African islands: E pelagiis Africa insulis tres ... Melita, Gaulos, Lampas
The ancient name of Malta was Melita, derived, however, neither from the excellence and abundance of its honey, nor from the nymph Melita, the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and mother by Hercules of Hyllus, king of Illyria, but from Milita, a Phoenician word, signifying, "a refuge," from the root Malat, "he delivered." This word is still preserved in the Arabic "an asylum." -- from Temple, Grenville. Excursions in the Mediterranean : Algiers and Tunis, Saunders and Otley, Conduit Street, 1836, p 181
Also your source: Pickles, Tim ; Hook, Christa. Malta 1565: Last Battle of the Crusades, Osprey Publishing, 1998, p 11 (of total 96) quotes the word Maleth.
Stop falsely quoting and misquoting the FCI source. Also we should insist on the order of those three places in the FCI source.
Imbris ( talk) 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What points, specifically, are in dispute regarding factual accuracy? I would like to get that dispute tag resolved. Mango juice talk 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The second and the seventh point of the RfC. -- Imbris ( talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This section needs substantial improvement. I disagree with Hafwyn's idea to have a section called "Disputed History" -- we should make the text reflect that there is a dispute (which is certainly true) instead. Right now, the history section is almost exclusively ancient history, regarding origins, but there's a lot more history we aren't covering. I think we should make subsections by historical time period: one for pre-ancient greece, one for the first ancient writings, one for renaissance / history (say, 1500-1900 or so), and one for this history of the modern breed since the era of official classification. Also, we should probably avoid the current approach of presenting one source's view at a time and instead try to describe individual points of history in a way that summarizes all sources. If we can agree to this approach, I'll try to write a draft pretty soon. Mango juice talk 14:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I say chuck everything Imbris has done and start from a clean slate. It can't get any worse. Pietru ( talk) 06:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In a number of sources I've looked at, people sometimes refer to the "Sicilian Melita" as the same as Malta, and sometimes seem to think they are different. It seems that Malta was at times ruled by Sicily, and Malta was called "Melita" in Latin. Should we mention this, or would that be too much WP:OR? Mango juice talk 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
As I wrote on the talk page of user Elm-39 (he asked not to post info there):
You can go over every single change at the history section of the article. One of those changes would be * http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Maltese_(dog)&diff=prev&oldid=267991313
There you can find out much on the content dispute.
It was narrowed up to these points:
I belive that it would be biased to mention Italy, Spain, Lyons, Malta and some other countries which have less to do with the dog and not to mention Mljet in the context of Dalmatia and Croatia.
Pietru il-Boqli is full of accusations and disruptive, he offended Tool2Die4. Pietru il-Boqli started his negative approach by name calling, like East European, Croatian, Yugoslav, Italian. He is the only one who sees my editing as problematic.
I cannot stress enought that Pietru il-Boqli deleted sourced information with his POV editing and that the diff [1] shows only his intervention.
Also I would like to mention that Tool2Die4 (also edited the article) stopped reverting my editing when I provided explanation of my editing on his talk page. Then Pietru il-Boqli offended him.
And finally, before I started editing the Maltese (dog) article it was completely Malta biased version which Pietru il-Boqli and some other editors (Tool2Die4 including) maintained.
Imbris ( talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any reason for reverting the article before both Pietru il-Boqli and myself started editing the article. I belive that, quoting you: "Darn, that would have been fun...", fun has nothing to do with it. Every sentence I brought into the article is sourced (though some sources have been deleted by Pietru il-Boqli).
By reverting the article to the point before Pietru il-Boqli and myself started editing the article would be less neutral than ever in its history. Previously reached agreements would be denied, like Talk:Maltese_(dog)/Archive_1#History.2FOrigins.
Deletion would bring nothing, I suggest that we contact the appropriate Wikiproject first.
Contrary to Pietru il-Boqli's position that "This article (woof woof) demonstrated no such nationalistic blemishes till you arrived on the scene" I must conclude that the article portrayed a nationalist Malta's POV which has been seen through by editors such as Gordon and La Fédération Cynologique Internationale. This revert will deeply worsen the quality of the article as it is today.
Imbris ( talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
As indicated here, the article has been locked down for a week to end the editwarring. Please pursue constructive methods of dispute resolution. — Scien tizzle 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Enough with the sniping back and forth. Further unconstructive comments may merit editing restrictions. Either have a civil discussion over the contents of this article or completely disengage. — Scien tizzle 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC
Deletes sourced sentences and refuses to talk issues. Here is an example [2].
Let him now explain how is his behaviour not deleting sources?!
Imbris ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some interesting sources:
Source from 1851 [3]
Source from 1807 [4]
Imbris ( talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Pietru il-Boqli started deflecting sources from former Yugoslavia with his comment "Also... do Soviet sources meet NPOV?" (posted in an edit summary, can be read in the history section). I must warn him that Antun Gustav Matoš died before the Great War. Also I would like him to explain his urge to save sentences which www.fci.be doesn't recognize as valid? Imbris ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Does this list make clear of incivility?
Imbris ( talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Pietru il-Boqli ( talk · contribs) and Imbris ( talk · contribs) are both on enforced 24 hour breaks for now. Both of you should take Beeblebrox's advice. Kevin ( talk) 01:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You guyd -do- know that Melita is the Latin name for Malta? There is no town in Siciliy called Melita.
Check it out =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.158.211 ( talk) 19:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This page has been sysop protected for one month pending an RfC and dispute resolution. If consensus and/or resolution is reached, please request page unprotection at WP:RFPP or on my talk page. Tan | 39 19:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion on:
It was narrowed up to these points:
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
My responses. 1: Linking to Mljet is sufficient; no need to link to Croatia. The fact that this city is in Croatia is not really that interesting to people who want to learn about the breed of dog, and if they are curious about Mljet, they'll navigate to its article and learn about it. 2: From looking at other articles on dog breeds, only "other names" that are frequently used in English seem to be included. So we should include whichever names are frequently used in English when referring to the dog breed, but there is no need to include other foreign names. I know that " Bichon Frise" is French, but is the common name of the breed in English; if that is the case for "Bichon Maltaise" it should remain. As for the Croatian names, I'd need to be convinced that they are in common English usage, which seems very unlikely to me. 3: It sounds like the sourcing is too thin for that level of emphasis. I think the statement should be included, but qualified, e.g. "According to La Federation Cynologique Internationale, the name does not signify that the breed originates from the island of Malta". 4: I don't understand this question, I have no idea who Callimachus or Bochart are or their relevance. 5: The sentence about Publius is sourced and relevant to the breed's history. The other sentence, about the general association, seems reasonable too but needs sourcing. They can be put together, as a way of describing the breed's relation to the island of Malta.. but it seems like better structure to keep the sentence about Publius in a section focused on historical information. (BTW, your framing of this question is not neutral, please revise it.) 6: No. The poetry is important to talk about, but is not directly relevant to a reader of this article. I suggest the poetry be placed on Wikisource and linked to, for those who want to read it. It should certainly not be in a trivia section since those are deprecated in general. 7: What is the source for that sentence? I don't see one. I'm concerned that such a sentence would be only partially sourced: that is, sourced by examples of people taking for granted that the dog breed comes from Malta, that have an absence of proof. In order to be properly sourced, a source should be found that criticizes other writings for assuming the connection to Malta without proof. Mango juice talk 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia is absurd. In almost every country in the world, the Maltese is roundly taken to have originated from Malta. Breeding bodies in every country that I could find online have the exact same listing, and have for as long as I've been alive (which is more than I'd care to say). However, on Wikipedia, it turns into a childish flame war, and the actual article itself mentions Italy, Croatia, and France before even mentioning Malta (which should be the ONLY country listed). The damn article should just be taken down altogether if old wives' tales, conspiracy theorists, and national origin homers dictate the obvious beginnings of the Maltese dog. Just my two cents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.254.7 ( talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I feel that Mangojuice should know Pietru il-Boqli attempted to insert information like "Many of Callimachus' theses have since been discredited by scholarly and archeological inquiry.", something about Sicilian town of Melita was populated by Maltese people and Kelb Malti (a clear hoax [4], because the speakers of the Maltese language use the term Kelb Malti to describe their national dog Il-Kelb tal-Fenek as well.) He was also responsible for maintaining the article as if the dog is flawless; obscuring all negatives such as the Australian-wide research which shows that the breed is Australian most unsatisfactory dog.
These are Utterly Absurd Editing as well as his accusations that Publius/Martial was ever omitted. What should be omitted is Pietru's editing which show clear Malta bias toward the issue. And Pietru (who claimed not interested in the article) must stop insisting to place the Publius/Martial content directly after POV sentences thus strengthening the claim of a one specimen over the entire historical breed. The flow of time and history should be of maximum importance and Pietru cannot change the course of history.
Imbris ( talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On reviewing a broad variety of sources, I think this dispute is quite muddled. There are three issues: (1) the actual origins of the dog breed, (2) the origins of the name and the breed's early history, and (3) the country most associated with the breed.
First, on the true origins of the dog breed, all the sources I looked at are in agreement that no one knows for sure, and many trace the origins well past the Greek/Roman period and mention Egypt, Phoenicia, and some mention the far east.
As for the way the breed's early history, there seem to be three theories about where the dog breed first got its name. Aristotle's writing was the first, before Callimachus, but he merely chose the name "canes melitenses," referring to Melita that could be the Adriatic island, the Sicilian town, or Malta. Callimachus apparently thought the breed came from the Adriatic island, according to one source in the Article, but apparently Queen Elizabeth's personal physician, when first writing about the breed, attributed it to Malta after Callimachus. So it seems to me that the similarity in names may easily have caused additional confusion. Finally, Strabo refers to the breed as coming from Sicily, a couple of hundred years later. Most recent sources acknowledge there is a dispute between these stories, and acknowledge all of them or some subset of them as possibilities. There is no consensus in the sources on this matter that I can see.
Finally, Malta is most associated with the breed; the sources all agree on this point. They don't always give any explanation as to why, but when they do, most point to other writings that refer to the dog as from Malta. Whether those writings were right or wrong, whether they refer to the breed's origins, early recorded history, or merely the source of individuals rather than the breed, is unclear. But the existence of the association is beyond doubt, and it's a long-lasting one, centuries old. Mango juice talk 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Both Pietru and I (I belive) know better than to claim having any sort of origin "master source". So imputing that origin is part of this dispute is beyond my comprehension. I know that some see certain sculptures in Egypt as the first source, but that sculpture(s) doesn't look anything resembling a reliable source. And then if you believe that Egyptian sculptures should be used as reliable sources (first to go under would be Pharaoh hound, and almost all dogs of the Mediterranean), if we should use that sort of sources as reliable. Also Asia is looked upon as a possible source rather than currently accepted Central Mediterranean Area. As for the name issue, we have agreed upon a formula presented by the F.C.I. so again complications have been made by Mangojuice. The dispute is not about determining the entire layout of the article up to the end of time. Aristotle is not a disputed issue, and as you said he is just the name creator, of the name that should go in the infobox (by all means). Callimachus had not apparently simply thought but had been an authority on dogs in that era (according by Briggs). And also stop phrasing that Callimachus was referenced by one source ony, he was referenced by his almost contemporary Pliny the Elder and latter authors.
On the Johannes Cajus, Doctor to H.M. the Queen Elisabeth I.
By Iiris Hyytinen (the President of the Maltese Club of Finland within the Finnish Toy Dog Association) Cajus: "reiterated Kallomacho but claimed that the breed originated in the fishing village of Melita in Sicily." So your interpretation is not correct, the good physician had not phrased his sentences as you put it (and from what source). You should really read what Iiris Hyytinen wrote, now seems deleted but Google saved us a version as it appeared on 24 Jan 2009 21:24:39 GMT. There she wrote: "Changing of the name Melita into Malta happened in England because Englishmen had quite uncertain knowledge about world beyond their own imperia. They did know Meleda but had no conception about Melita. There are no known traces of Maltese dog found on the island of Malta.".
Strabo thought that the two dogs he obtained in Sicily were the only of its kind left
Also I believe that simply because Malta was British possession that some reckless English writers deliberately produced such nonsense of the Maltese origin. The name was determined in the 1800's as written by Dan Rice.
First exposition of the dog was in 1862 in the UK. Kennel Club had decided that the variety shall be called Maltese, a dictum that must be accepted by the Fancy as written by William Drury.
And finally your supposition that Malta is whatever is clearly made up of not reliable sources such as different kennel clubs, breeder's personal blogs and websites, forums and internet cut-copy-paste from previously totally biased versions of the article on this Wikipedia. And we should use Google to determine everything, relevance, value, verifiability, content and last but not least content. I am not sure to agree with such logic as many of wikipedians also do not agree on internet as reliable source. Google (as a search tool) is very limited because we all do not live in America to have rich resources to digitalise and machine read our data. Is our data hence less important?
And finally about your supposition that all the sources agree, I could not believe to see such logical fault from a mathematician. English writers that point to some other English writers; that point to nothing is a loop that couldn't be construed as reliable sourcing and scientific referencing. Also your comment on centuries of lasting is rebutted by Briggs and Antun Gustav Matoš and writers from mid 1970's on. I am very, very glad to see that you have expressed such position because the future generations need to know why you commented in the way you did. Centuries long…
As for Strabo, try to find mythical Melita on Sicily, Italian Wikipedia doesn't answer the question what modern town, village should be proud to be called Melita in antiquity.
And Rule, Britannia! comes to mind because ruling the seas has nothing to do with Britons ever becoming slaves but has much, much to do with ruling the World. Please do not be offended but Iiris Hyytinen has a point which I reiterated, nothing to do with you personally, or Britons as a Nation, maybe its leadership and school curriculum/authorities.
Please comment:
And I the RfC is phrased as not demanding the names be put in the infobox.
Imbris (
talk)
02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It is somewhat hard to tell since this "conversation" is so rambling. But:
1.Whether or not to mention the fact that Mljet is in today's Croatia
2. Whether or not to mention one of the Croatian names for the dog (French name included in the infobox)
3. Whether or not to mention the fact established by La Fédération Cynologique Internationale which says: "His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta" as the first sentence of the dog's standard.
4. Whether or not to include Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," also quotes Callimachus to be correct.
5. Whether or not to include this sentence "During the first century, Publius, the Roman governor of Malta, had a Maltese named Issa of which he was very fond." just after the sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea" thus strengthening the claim.
6. Whether or not to include in the history section the entire Publius/Martial poetry, or perhaps in the trivia section.
7. Whether or not to include sourced sentences like "English writers seem to have taken for granted that the dog we call Maltese originally came from Malta; but not one offers the slightest proof in support of the assumption." hence deleting the sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea"
Done -- Imbris ( talk) 00:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
All of the pictures in this article seem to be of a "puppy cut". Should there be one for the type of haircut seen in competitions? 209.218.223.158 ( talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Please add bs:Maltezer, and correct hr:Maltezer. -- Smooth O ( talk) 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally your latest edits have been very informative; however, please take the time to re-read your edits before you save them. There are quite a few grammatical and orthography errors. I'll go through the article when I get a minute. Apart from your bizarre changes to the Malta link (I thought you had stopped your anti-Malta agenda?) your work seems very interesting. However, you have consistently ignored the comments given above after requesting them yourself! Asking for other editors to help and then ignoring them is hardly the best way forward. Pietru ( talk) 01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Imbris, your outdated sources are utterly exposed in the comments above. Please read them and learn from them. Pietru ( talk) 10:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This section is pure fecal matter.
A study in the USA (which I have yet to track down, I saw it decades ago) found that the vast majority of dog attacks (60+%) were by "small dogs", eg Jack Russell, Maltese, XX Terrier etc. The reason was neuroses brought on by being accidentally kicked all the time.
Malteses are supposed to be a "perfect" companion dog: so when they turn neurotic, they get no sympathy. In addition, Malteses are incredibly loyal (I don't see this in the Temperament section any more, which idiot wiped it?), so they react to what they percieve as threats to their humans.
122.200.166.84 ( talk) 12:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Maltese ancestors used for pig herding???????
The references given do not support the claim -- you will find it is almost certainly a minor vandalism, and it should be removed ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.200.166.84 ( talk) 13:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you lot of trolls cannot get your act together to put this article back to the factual info it used to be, I WILL.
STOP INSULTING each other, STOP POINT-SCORING.
There are a lot of people who would like to use Wikipedia as a reference, and they can't because all you lot want is to feed your stupid egos.
Wise up, wake up, and stop bringing Wiki into disrepute. 122.200.166.84 ( talk) 13:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Malta was known as Malat by the Phoenicians. What was up with "Meleda" back then?
— Question by Pietru il-Boqli
You misunderstood. The màlat is supposedly a Semitic root of all the words containing it, in the meaning harbour, refuge, to escape
Melita means the same, a "place of refuge," Gesenius, p 92 ; Bochart, vol. iii. p. 500 (in some prints 499), Movers, in Ersch und Gruber, paragraph-sign iii., vol. xxiv. p. 349.
Melita in the Adriatic was described by Scylax, Agathemerus and Pliny the Elder as being near to Corcyra nigra but for the fuller account of it I refer you to Cluverius, Bochart and Ovid.
On the other hand Diodorus is the first to inform on Malta as a Phoencian settlement, by many sources.
Also we can find sources that speak of the Melite Illyrica and the Melite Africana. Melite Illyrica (Melitae, Melitene, Melitassa) was the first to be recorded in history under the name Melitae.
Bochart himself ranks Malta among the African islands: E pelagiis Africa insulis tres ... Melita, Gaulos, Lampas
The ancient name of Malta was Melita, derived, however, neither from the excellence and abundance of its honey, nor from the nymph Melita, the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and mother by Hercules of Hyllus, king of Illyria, but from Milita, a Phoenician word, signifying, "a refuge," from the root Malat, "he delivered." This word is still preserved in the Arabic "an asylum." -- from Temple, Grenville. Excursions in the Mediterranean : Algiers and Tunis, Saunders and Otley, Conduit Street, 1836, p 181
Also your source: Pickles, Tim ; Hook, Christa. Malta 1565: Last Battle of the Crusades, Osprey Publishing, 1998, p 11 (of total 96) quotes the word Maleth.
Stop falsely quoting and misquoting the FCI source. Also we should insist on the order of those three places in the FCI source.
Imbris ( talk) 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
What points, specifically, are in dispute regarding factual accuracy? I would like to get that dispute tag resolved. Mango juice talk 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The second and the seventh point of the RfC. -- Imbris ( talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This section needs substantial improvement. I disagree with Hafwyn's idea to have a section called "Disputed History" -- we should make the text reflect that there is a dispute (which is certainly true) instead. Right now, the history section is almost exclusively ancient history, regarding origins, but there's a lot more history we aren't covering. I think we should make subsections by historical time period: one for pre-ancient greece, one for the first ancient writings, one for renaissance / history (say, 1500-1900 or so), and one for this history of the modern breed since the era of official classification. Also, we should probably avoid the current approach of presenting one source's view at a time and instead try to describe individual points of history in a way that summarizes all sources. If we can agree to this approach, I'll try to write a draft pretty soon. Mango juice talk 14:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I say chuck everything Imbris has done and start from a clean slate. It can't get any worse. Pietru ( talk) 06:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
In a number of sources I've looked at, people sometimes refer to the "Sicilian Melita" as the same as Malta, and sometimes seem to think they are different. It seems that Malta was at times ruled by Sicily, and Malta was called "Melita" in Latin. Should we mention this, or would that be too much WP:OR? Mango juice talk 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)