Talk:Maltese dog

Resolving dispute

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/w/index.php?title=Maltese_(dog)&diff=prev&oldid=267991313

There you can find out much on the content dispute.

It was narrowed up to these points:

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 completely POV sentence "Maltese are generally associated with the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea" thus injustly strengthening the claim of the POV sentence.
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".

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)

Holy crap, both of your edits are just bad. Why is it so hard to write a normal NPOV article?! "It is without doubt and most clear" ?! This does not belong to ANY wiki article. The edit from Maltese guy is much better, but I have doubts, since usually article of somebody who insults other people the way he does, can not be good. In my opinion you two should just forget about where you come from, because you are both nationalistic in the way you behave. That's a shame. The article should be edited by someone who is neither Maltese nor Croatian - or is at least capable of forgetting that for couple of minutes.

I've had enough of mysterious anons on Wiki. Don't presume on the situation and please, if you think you can do a better job, go ahead. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Elm-39 insisting on reverting?

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)

Chill. Don't you have any other interests on Wikipedia other than these dogs?? Or is insinuating your special POV into every possible article your primary interest :p Either way, I've moved on from this. If I see any edits of yours that, as before, fly in the face of Wiki policy, I'll take appropriate action. Otherwise, hands=washed :D את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Other names issue

The national dog of Malta is indubiously the Pharaoh Hound. Apparently there exist a toy breed of the Pharaoh Hound called in the Maltese language Il-Kelb tal-But. The article protects the vision of the breed as Maltese proper, even with such defences like Pharaoh Hound#Ethical Dilemma.

The Pharaoh Hound has an Egyptian Myth and simmilarly the Maltese (dog) has a Myth of the breed orriginating in Malta.

We can look at the other dog breeds to ascertain whether or not different names have been used:

• Bully Kutta in Pakistan and as Alangu Mastiff in India is apparently Indian but uses both names
• Great Dane - under the other names section even Old-French
• Afghan Hound - mentioning of Baluchi used name (part of Pakistan)
• Pug - mentions all sorts of names
• Pekingese - all sorts, spellings
• Bichon Frisé - spanish name also
• Basenji - full range of names
• Armant (dog) - several names (Ermenti not identified from which language it comes).
• Saluki - several names, if Saluki is the official name then Tazi is from some other language, which one?

I expect the administrators to warn Pietru il-Boqli to stop this "Or is insinuating your special POV into every possible article your primary interest" and simmilar sentences.

Imbris (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Full protection

As indicated here, the article has been locked down for a week to end the editwarring. Please pursue constructive methods of dispute resolution. — Scientizzle 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is Imbris' disappearance to be taken as an admission of culpability/turn-over-a-new-leafyness? If so, I wish him well^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Another unconstructive comment by Pietru il-Boqli who seems to doesn't know better. I am surprised to see that such editors exist on this Wikipedia because where I come from admins are very strict. -- Imbris (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that things are a lot less dictatorial outside the gulags. Welcome to the West! את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to be amusing, you should have learned that it is appropriate to end such remarks with a smiley. -- Imbris (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sure to remember that :D את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 15:45, 5 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. — Scientizzle 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC

So this page has full protection, right? I can't rollback every single change these two made? Darn, that would have been fun... Elm-39 - T/C 14:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru il-Boqli deleting sources, says User:Imbris!

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)

...all that I did was return the para to its original placement, not remove sources. As I've said here and elsewhere, I am tired of you Imbris. I've moved on to new articles of interest and would rather stop having to return here dealing with your mess. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you deleted a sourced sentence. -- Imbris (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Other sources that the general connection should be omitted

Here are some interesting sources:

• Dan Rice thinks that in about 1800. the dog started to be called from Malta. (page 155) and in Origin "One writer studied every work on Malta contained in the British Museum and found no references to a Maltese dog. (page 156).
• • Strabo does not give Malta as the native place of the breed, but, on the contrary, writes as follows.
  • A.D. 25 ... town in Sicily called Melita.
  • ... practically every English writer seems 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.
  • "Stonehenge" in his earliest work on the dog, describes the breed as nearly extinct, but, although "scarce, still to be obtained in Malta." He, however, in the same work gives an engraving of a dog, as a Maltese, imported from Manilla. In "The Dogs of the British Islands," stil hankering after Malta as their birthplace, he confesses his inability "to trace any record of the dog, after many inquiries made amongst residents in Malta.". 575
  • However, the Kennel Club has decided that the variety shall now be called Maltese, a dictum that must be accepted by the Fancy. 576

Source from 1851

• On Malta:
  • belonging to Africa, from its having Punic inhabitants and being no farther from Africa than from Sicily. The earlier Greek historians do not mention it since it was regarded as a Carthaginian island, and lay without their historical limits. Diodorus Siculus is the first that gives us any account of it. "There are," he says, "over against that part of Sicily which lies to the south, three islands and safe ports for ships overtaken by tempests. The first, called Melite, is about 800 stadia from Syracuse ... The island is a colony of Phoenicians ... (Diod. Sic., 5, 12.) Malta is said to have been subsequently occupied by the Greeks; but, however this may be, the Carthaginians obtained possesion of it B.C. 402 In the first Punic war it surrendered to the Romans, and was regarded henceforth as an appendage to the province of Sicily
• On the other issues:
  • The first relates to the voyage of St. Paul, which will be considered under Melita II.; the other is of a more trivial nature, namely, which island, this or the Illyrian Melita (now Meleda), furnished the Catuli Melitaei, so much esteemed by the Roman ladies. Pliny, on the authority of Callimachus and Stephanus of Byzantium, pronounces in favour of Meleda, Strabo of Malta (280).-

Source from 1807

• Says: As to the catuli Melitenses mentioned by Callimachus, they are by some ascribed to Malta ; but it is a mistake. These dogs were an Illyrian breed; and very common in Magna Graecia, and those places that had any correspondence with the Greek colonies in the Adriatic : but, of all others, they were in greatest esteem among the Sybarites, the most languid and indolent people upon earth ; who made these animals attend them to the bath?, carrying in their mouths the little implements for bathing.
• There is a gem mentioned in the 3 Museum Florentinum, with a representation of one of these dogs, and a short account of them subjoined. Canum Melitaeorum, quorum meminit Athenaeus, lib. 12. cap. 3. ea laus fuit, sequi euntes ad balneum. Servi officium hi implebant, olei guttum et strigiles ferentes, quibus ilomihi ungeren'tur destringeren- turque ; uti h&c rarissima et pulcherrima gemma ostendit.' This short account of the island I thought proper to lay before the reader; to shew that such a place existed, and to take off any prejudice that might arise from its supposed obscurity.
• From what has been said, the point would be settled past controversy, were it not for an island of the same name, situated at a great distance in the African sea. It has been the common opinion that the Melite now called Malta was the true place of the Apostle's shipwreck : and the natives have a tradition of long standing to support this notion. Yet, however general this may have been, I think it may be fairly proved that it could not be the island mentioned by the Evangelist.

Imbris (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is interesting. Also, it proves your entirely nationalistically driven understanding of the project (Wikipedia) and the agenda driving your edits (something made very clear by your previous contributions/comments on your talkpage).

Bravo! 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also... I guess Horace isn't anywhere near as definitive a source as "Mr Dan Rice". Hah. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You obviously belive that some modern translation of Horace would be a reliable source. Horace was a poet and not a natural scientist like Callimachus and Pliny the Elder. Also where is that poem you like so much, I mean in it's original Latin form. -- Imbris (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

He describes a little white lapdog. That's more than "natural scientists" (by what definition?!) like Callimachus and Pliny the Elder ever wrote. I find it interesting to discover that you felt entirely at ease deleting the poem itself/references to it when it turns out you've never even read the thing! More proof of your editing attitude. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you coming back to attacks at my editing? Tool2Die4 deleted that paragraph about the poem Martial sung in Biblos, Spain about Issa. Where is your Horace now? Please stop mixing Martial into the equation when his name is in the article - poems are for wikisource and not encyclopaedical (article) material. -- Imbris (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not "mine" please stop personalizing this. Tool2Die4 also reverted your various edits and got into a bit of bother on unrelated edits. I fail to see how that user figures into this present issue. Also, literature and its benefits receive very welcome and encouraged review here on Wikipedia. Don't be a philistine. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Soviet time sources?

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)

Pietru il-Boqli's presumed incivility

Does this list make clear of incivility?

• Imbris, we need an admin/admins before you get to a place you'll regret
• User:Imbris' hatred for Malta is clouding his attitude to these articles
• 'Not one' what? Learn English.
• suitable to the Croatian wiki (if there is such a thing)
• Distortion of facts by introduction of out-dated information/obvious ex-Yugoslav bias being repeated over and over again: an attempt at returning the article to a clean state.
• rv Imbris' repeated nationalistic POV pushing
• Deflecting your nationalist agenda does nothing but implicate you further removing Croatian nationalism pushing
• I'm undoing Imbris' nationalistic pov pushing. Imbris, continue along this path and I'll be forced to take the matter up with an admin

Imbris (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As nice as it is to be the subject of most of your wikiwork, might I recommend moving on? Reviewed in context, each of my comments is eminently suitable to your malign editing. And since we have been discussing this article ad nauseum, I'm beginning to think your entire MO here is to attack rather than make positive edits. Get a grip! 汚い危険きつい (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru il-Boqli can continue to offend me as much as he wants, but the result would be the same. I have accidentaly stumbled onto this article to find out it has been maintained in a completely POV condition by Pietru il-Boqli. He even realized that the time of POV is over but kept edit-waring and claiming that he is not interested in the article. So what keeps him hanging onto this article?

By his own admission he has omitted crutial pieces of information (before I started contributing to this article). The entire issue is most clear when you read the discussions posted this year only onto this talk page. It is not so much to read, I hope.

Now he is trying a new tactics because his previously implored one failed. Namely he labeled me as a nationalist, Eastern European, Croatian, Yugoslav, Italian, Eastern (he shortened it latter).

That new tactics I previously mentioned is called accusing editor to edit just some segments of Wikipedia, hello, we all edit certain segments of Wikipedia.

I advise Pietru il-Boqli to stop and to take his own advice. If the topic is of no interest to him, why does he keep on returning and deleting sentences, adding POV sentences, adding incorrectly placed information (incorrecty towards the timeline of history), etc.

Even Tool2Die4 has (before blocked) and despite he collaborated with Pietru il-Boqli before I came along, even Tool2Die4 has seen through Pietru il-Boqli's POV.

Who is next to see for him/herself?

Imbris (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense, courtesy of Imbris. You can't even keep Tool2Die4 (your favourite editor before he was blocked, LOL) out of your rants? And apparently I was maintaining this article before you 'stumbled' across it? I didn't label you a nationalist, you did that yourself. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How can you continue to speak in this mannor. You have labeled yourself when William M. Connolley labeled you as a user who wrongly accuses other users [3]. I have had it. Expect to be in the next ANI report if you continue to keep not discussing the issues and keep discussing my person. Tool2Die4 was not my favourite editor, he was your collaborator in keeping the article as Malta POV as it could possibly be. -- Imbris (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You tell me to discuss the issues when you have systematically spent the last hour (or more..) mud slinging? You've got nerve! 汚い危険きつい (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be a very good idea for all of you to take a break from this article and from attacking each other. The world is not going to end if this page doesn't say what you want it to say. Go do something else for a few days, there are millions of other articles that need editing, and a whole world outside of the internet as well. Come back in a week or so and try to look at this problem from a fresh perspective. Maybe try mediation to come up with a neutral version of the article that all involved parties can agree on, but only after taking some time off from this page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 18 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)

If this keeps up (and no reason to believe it won't) is it possible to ban both editors from this article? This is absurd. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm....

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)

Page protected

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)

It looks like this is the last version before the edit-warring originally started. Should this version be restored before all the RfC stuff? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Best policy with page protection is to just use the last revision before protection, so as not to choose sides. As long as it doesn't contain obvious vandalism, it's fine. Mangojuice^talk 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are these information relevant for the article? 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

In the discussion on:

• Talk:Maltese (dog)#Resolving dispute there are seven pieces of information listed and the editors wish to know which of those seems relevant to be added into the article.

Note - I have copied the 6 points here to ensure any discussion remains in one place. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It was narrowed up to these points:

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"

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. Mangojuice^talk 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Imbris informed me further about the Callimachus / Bochart issue. I can now say (4): These appear to be reliable sources to me and should not be dismissed. It's not like there is a vast overabundance of sources... and even if there were, historical ones are of interest. Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This dispute is quite strange. I would suggest changing the lead to

"A Maltese is a small breed of dog covered with long, silky white hair. The Maltese breed of today is believed to be descended from dogs associated with various areas in the Mediterranean region."

There is no written historical proof, or genetic proof, that today's modern breed is related to the little fluffy white dogs of antiquity, although most dog fanciers think so. The History section needs to point out that just because there were small fluffy white dogs in ancient Roman or Greek times doesn't mean that they were a breed, or even related to the modern breed.

I'm having a hard time understanding what this dispute is about, but the cementing of nationalistic claims is not part of the goal of dog articles on Wikipedia.--Hafwyn (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Utterly Absurd Editing

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)

A list of countries isn't itself problematic, it's any editorial pressure that renders one somehow more favourably than the rest, against the grain of sourced material. penitent (talk) 23:19, 1 March 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.

• He even removed NPOV "by name" in [5]
• Added weasel wording "most popularly" in [6]

• Insisted on "the word Issa means Now in the Maltese language" and now speaks of classicists.
• [7] this link is to describe how he added "so called for the high number of Maltese people that lived there"
• [8] Pietru's first edit on the dog and complete POV, he is well known of accusing other editors of vandalism, at that time the article contained the sentence " His name does not signify that he originates from the island of Malta"

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)

Imbris, cut it out. I'm not going to go through this again, we've had enough of a time together (I must say, the fact we both got blocked and you started slandering me takes the cake). Yes, your attempts at manipulating this article are floundering; no, you should not feel threatened. It'll turn out all right in the end, promise. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Origins vs. History vs. "Maltese"

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. Mangojuice^talk 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We are only talking about RfC

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:

• Chambers's Encyclopaedia: A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge, published by J. B. Lippincott Company, 1901, p 827 which contain this sentence: "The Maltese Dog (qv) is virtually extinct"
• The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General, published by Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911, p 508 which contain "The Maltese dog was never wild and has ceased to exist as a breed."
• The Encyclopædia of Geography: Comprising a Complete Description of the ...‎ by Hugh Murray, 1855, p 19, "The Maltese dog is nearly extinct".

And I the RfC is phrased as not demanding the names be put in the infobox. Imbris (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I was looking at what I could read of books on the subject via Google Book Search; some online sources but mainly the books. I quite agree that some of the reasoning these people use is poor, especially how they credit Malta by pointing only to others who credit Malta. Similarly, I think that those who trace the origins to the Egyptians, Phoenecians, or others are making educated guesses, or reporting on research that has partial or preliminary findings.. but then they are always cautious about those claims ("some have" ... "it is thought" ... etc). However, and this is the important thing, we cannot be the ones to pass judgement on the sources: Wikipedia reports on subjects as they are covered in reliable sources; going beyond that would be original research.

BTW, I wondered about that Brittanica sentence.. "ceased to exist as a breed." I wish we could find info on what has happened since then! I did see a source that said the Maltese was thought to be extinct at one time. Is the current modern population bred from those few survivors? Or is the modern dog population different from the one that was thought to have died out? Also, that Finnish source -- good but it misses the point somewhat, because Melita was a name for Malta apparently. But I do appreciate this because it matches my own observation. I also love that next paragraph in the source that describes what happened with the breed in the 17th-19th centuries. It may be that this explains the claim from Brittanica. My only concern is that the text of that source may not be reliable: who is Iiris Hyytinen, and where did that paragraph come from? The page claims to be the FCI Breed Standard, but we have another translation that contains only the first two paragraphs of the history.

Ok, I have to admit, at first I just wanted to try to help resolve an edit war but I am finding this dog breed fascinating. I would like to see us aim to get this article to featured status; it'll be a lot of work, but the story of this breed is just terrific. Mangojuice^talk 04:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this breed does have a colourful and intriguing history. However Imbris, in your drive to distance the animal from Maltese origins you continually omit the clear, historical and documented references to Saint Publius' pet; you seem to make this oversight rather consistently. The fact that the Maltese (dog) is firmly linked with the Mediterranean island of Malta in modern times is equally incontrovertible. This obviously doesn't suggest the creature was first bred there, but that its connection is Classical. Also; seeing this article featured (especially after all the tumult it's caused) would be very nice indeed ^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the natural way to do this is to simply report on what the sources say. Only the most superficial sources (or old ones) link the breed to Malta without admitting that there is little evidence or at least substantial dispute. As for Publius' pet, it is a fact I saw mentioned in many sources, so it seems like something that ought to be mentioned somewhere. Mangojuice^talk 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There is little to no clearly sourced evidence for many of the reported claims, beyond unique references or ambiguous attributions. The suggestion made below re creating a 'Disputed history' section for all the available material concerning origins and early development seems the best way forward. This is an ancient breed and presumes an ancient pedigree; since that concept is relatively recent, tracing descent to any single location would be misleading. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are comments on the points actually wanted?

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

Please create a "Disputed history" section of the article and put the information there. This is all very interesting but the purpose of the article is to present basic information about the modern-day breed, which may or may not be related to the, uhm, confusing argument.

2. Whether or not to mention one of the Croatian names for the dog (French name included in the infobox)

Breed names in the info box should only show the name the dog was given in its country of origin, and the English translation. "County of Origin", if in dispute for a recognised breed, should be determined by the way it is listed with the Fédération Cynologique Internationale. If there are other translations, take them out; this is "English" Wikipedia.

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.

Should be a citeable fact for your "Disputed history" section of the article.

4. Whether or not to include Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," also quotes Callimachus to be correct.

Include this in the "Disputed history" section of the article.

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.

Include this in the "Disputed history" section of the article.

6. Whether or not to include in the history section the entire Publius/Martial poetry, or perhaps in the trivia section.

I believe that Triva sections have been depreiciated on Wikipedia, perhaps you could use this as a source for a citeable fact in the "Disputed history" section of the article.

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"

What you are saying is not clear-but please do not re-explain the facts. Please ask for help from a qualified Wikipedia editor for your writing in English. This is meant with kindness; I think (although it is hard to tell) that it is not your facts and ideas that are problematic, it is your inability to communicate them in English. Perhaps if you were able to express your ideas with more clarity, the edit warring and difficulties would cease.--Hafwyn (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an appropriate section in which pre-standardization theories and speculation regarding the breed may be accurately and neutrally rendered. I'm also glad to see that somebody else thinks having the breed name in random languages is ridiculous. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hafwyn, what do you suggest we do for the names in this specific case? The FCI lists the country of origin as "Central Meditteranean area" -- not a country. Shouldn't we just list English names, in that case? Mangojuice^talk 13:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the history section is full of names for the dog, only Island terrier by John Henry Walsh is missing, in this section and not in the infobox should the name in the Croatian language be placed. It would be referenced as was referenced before. Must I remind that we have in that paragraph/section lots of names that are not current English language names and French, Italian names. -- Imbris (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Such names occur because they are pertinent to the subject in a clear, historical context. None of these breed articles offer foreign language names that don't meet this requirement. Otherwise the list would basically have to contain every variety! the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The name has clear historical provenience, comes from reliable sources and has pertinence since most of scholars refer to Melita in the Adriatic, it is very well established fact from antiquity to before the industrial revolution to modernity. Pietru as a known prankster that added hoaxes and makes fun of Wikipedia by deleting sources should not be considered as a measure of established facts. -- Imbris (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'Hoaxes'? Pfft. I'm still waiting for your first apology Imbris. Place the information by all means, but do it by the expected standard. In decent English. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all you have to say after you put me through that entire nasty ordeal. I am not by any WP obliged apologising to a person who acted the way you did. I will not go into discussion with you but must remind that your name calling and editing under pretence to start conflicts, call anybody and everybody a vandal, the list could go on and on. And then after all that you have face to turn everything you did to me and say that I did that same everything to you. -- Imbris (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You asked for comments on the situation and are now vigorously rallying against them. Think. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Picture of standard haircut

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)

Did you mean something like the commons:File:Maltese 600.jpg? -- Imbris (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I vote we ascertain the nationality of the puppy in question. If it's not Maltese, or from a small (fictional) town in Sicily or... what was the other one?... then we can't include it. Ever! ;-) Pietru (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We should really put the genie back to into the bottle and Pietru il-Boqli should refrain from making similar comments. Also Sicilian town of Melita can be seen on some ancient maps, the Italians say, and the Etruscan vase was found north of Rome. Breeds do not have nationality, although individual dogs have passports now. -- Imbris (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm pulling your leg. And is that really what 'the Italians' say? I've seen it nowhere else. Still, fascinating. Maybe we should include a copy of this pooch's passport (or suitable ID card number and tracking code) as a footnote. Pietru (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

+bs

Please add bs:Maltezer, and correct hr:Maltezer. --Smooth O (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest Edits

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)

You are again trying the same tactics. Intimidating and falsely informing the auditorium. You are the one ignoring the comments that other editors gave. If the a bunch of sources write the island of Malta, they do not mean the Republic of Malta. This is why we should write as the source tells us to write. Your reverting shows just how far you are willing to go over this. It is proposterous for an editor to use such tactics. I hope when Mangojuice would return he may realize what you are trying to do.

You are trying to provocke other editors by constant claims of their (by your account only) unwillingness to take advices, and in the same time keep edit-waring, not discussing, not explaining what you are doing and why, etc.

You have more than once disrupted the editorial processes and in the same time commented on how you are not really interested in the article, how you are keeping watch over it from other editors, how you would like it to be FL but have not done anything for the completion of that goal. This article is not under your patronage, nor you are the patroller on watch. You are just an editor who constantly makes edit-waring, starts fights, use name-calling, edit without sources, etc.

You said that you will turn all right in time. When is that time comming?

Stop with your agenda of false pretences and constant harassment.

The wikilink could only be towards the [[Malta Island|Malta]] or [[Malta Island|island of Malta]], if we want to be unbiased and if we want to cite sources properly and honestly.

Imbris (talk) 02:04, 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)

Adding a Template:calmtalk in front of the discussion led by you and me is not modifying other editors' comments, and your comments about insertion of a simple template is what is a very poor form.

On the question of biased editing and your continuing name-calling, you might get reported to the ANI.

Please stop inserting non relevant information, because mentioning Malta in the context of an island should be wikilinked to the article on Malta Island and not with the article on the Republic of Malta. Furthermore insertion of the adjective Mediterranean in front of the island of Malta is complete bias, because the problem of the country of origin. The country of origin as named in the standard is Central Mediterranean, thus adding the adjective Mediterranean in front of the name of the island (which is not reported in the given source) is biased, falsely strengthness the connection in a way not reported by the given source. I belive that any editor would agree that in this case we do not need any information of such nature.

Imbris (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, it has already been reasonably demonstrated that you are a compromised editor, working from a place of subjectively driven editing. You are picking away at very precise sections of this article, always in relation to Malta or the creatures' Maltese link, as well as inserting information pushing an alternative position (most of which has been removed). You were unable to achieve consensus on your points and are ignoring the comments generously contributed by other editors. As I've said before, perhaps it's time to stop and think. Pietru (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is deeply concerning that you keep on attacking the editor instead of the issue. This ploy is destined to fail. Even Mangojuice would see throught your tactics. From what I have learned you often defame other editors in hope that other editors (this article has not got much contributing editors), that other editors who are not exactly interested or not in touch with all information would listen and go your way. This is highly regular in your behaviour. Calling other editors vandals and writing nonsense like shouting Imbris quit the propaganda and Nationalist editor Imbris' edit, deletion of Mediterranean and agenda led redirection of Malta, (see talkpage), this is harmful, and yet again you do it. It seems that you have no real intention of colaborating on the content of this article.

Also you keep on going with same accusations like I am interested in all of the Maltese articles, I have not edited in bad faith in any of my edits. You on the other hand have edited in bad faith, and keep on going accusing others for what you are doing. Nice tactics, but it would fail in the long run. People will see through that tactic eventualy.

Since the RfC I have not edited any of the RfC concerned issues, waiting for Mangojuice to say what and where. I know that you would revert any change that is not up to your nose and knowing that you will disrespect the Mangojuice's comment about spliting the sentence about alleged general association from the sentence about Publius/Martial. You would disrespect the flow of time and the flow of history to promote you POV, so I have no illusions about your editing to even try to edit on the points of the RfC. For that I am waiting Mangojuice.

You should stop and think where will your behaviour leed, from this point into the future. You have subjective edited and claimed that the mentioning of the island of Malta is directly meant at mentioning of the all Maltese (culture, nation, state, etc.) thus must lead to the article on the Republic of Malta. This is OR of the worst kind.

Why have you deleted the part of your address where you mention your own POV? Where you mention your blemished editing?

Imbris (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, I am not attacking you personally, stop deflection. I also refuse to plough through sloppy grammar. Basically, I see that you've ceased your reversions for the moment. In future, raise issues on the talkpage before making summary edits. It will benefit everybody who works on the article. Your way is not necessarily the best, or only, way. As I've said, you may wish to read the comments that have been provided above (which you begged for) and have so far failed to act on. I will collaborate, I have collaborated, but I won't be bullied, which seems to be your tactic of preference when it comes to interaction with me; be it questioning my ethnicity, disregarding my edits without even reading them, making substantial changes to other articles (eg. Kelb tal-Fenek) which had to later be fixed etc. As for the 'part of my address' removed: I edited my comment because I felt it was overly deprecatory of your contributions (not because it was false). Pietru (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Again you keep on going defaming my contribution as begging. It is deeply concerning to see how you insist on talking about the editor and not on the edits (concerning this article, naturally). The only bully of this article can be seen even from Space. I do not see any need for three wikilinks on the Mediterranean, explain your latest edit where you keep insisting on the word Mediterranean be wikilinked three times in the article, and note that there is no need of mentioning the word before the text 'island of Malta' because the source given for that sentence doesn't give such description.

You have not colaborated nor given any meaningfull edit to this article, the only thing you have done is proclaimed this article your personal possesion, as all other Malta articles, the scope of your editing is only concerned with Malta. When it comes to this article you "defeneded" the article, better said it very clear you defended the Malta POV version of this article against what previous editors agreed upon, GordonE and other editors who made concensus on the talk page long before you came along.

Whenever I edited on anything of the Maltese origin, I edited with respect, with sources and with good things on my mind. I have not made substantial edits on the Pharaoh Hound, and suggest you stop your sourceless claims of otherwise. You have not fixed anything, because the Il-Kelb tal-Fenek most certainly can be used for lots of different hunting techniques, and on hares as well.

When you offended me and kept on offending I have expressed only the respect for a range of possibilities that a UK resident has, nothing more, and you were the one who offended using harsh language and false claims of vandalism on my part.

Imbris (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Was part of that an apology? If so, I accept. Please maintain the same level of respect throughout your editing and hopefully there'll be no need for any harsh words between us ever again! I'm very glad to see that you've started work on the article bringing it in line with comments and suggestions. Honestly, I can't wait for both of us to move along to greener pastures and let other editors have a go. However your attempts at keeping nationalism out of the article are so far commendable. Keep it up! Pietru (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say that you are incredible, you honestly belive that I should apologize because of my respect toward Maltese and any other article-topic I edited. I think that Mangojuice should be seriously concerned about your recent editing, (1) where you completely distort sources sentences by adding nationalistic biased and unsourced sentences.

(2) where you distort the timeline, add dubious wikilinks to justify wikilinking the word Mediterranean in front of the words island of Malta.

(3) where you keep on insisting that the dog is associated by more than only his name

(4) falsely claim the Publius pet/Martial song as a tool to assert the previous false claim, the island was thence refered as Melita, not Malta

(5) mislead by adding preety in front of freely

(6) raised history of the breed above the dogs characteristics

(7) deleted the statement supported by both Mangojuice and the other commentator which assert that FCI do not consider Malta as the place of origin.

(8) insist on connecting the sentences that cannot be connected with each other, the POV sentence about alleged general association with Publius/Martial and distorting the flow of time in the History section.

There is a great deal of need to warn you of your behaviour, of your accusatory methods, of your sourceless editing and of your mission of claiming this article for your biased POV.

Imbris (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything, but half of the above are a pack of lies, the rest are just bizarre interpolations. Imbris, you're the one who added the word "preety" and you did that because of your difficulties with the English language which litter the article like landmines. Pietru (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, please chill out. Stop it with the rampant WP:AGF violations. Pietru, I don't see how wanting to link to Malta Island rather than Malta constitutes a POV agenda rather than just an idea you disagree with. That said, I also disagree with it; frankly, there's practically no information at Malta Island and Republic of Malta, while ostensibly about the modern country, is actually full of information about the island group and their history. Furthermore, while the sources of course don't describe the Maltese dogs as being from the modern country of Malta, neither do they say the dogs were specifically from only the main island of Malta rather than the Maltese islands, which have been considered a group going back thousands of years. As for the other issues, too many to jump into all of them right now. Please, let's have more calm good faith discussion instead of all this reverting and name calling.. from both of you. Mangojuice^talk 05:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost all sources write in singular the island of Malta and not in plural, the main source, used for reference, <ref name="FCI"/> doesn't write on the entire archipelago (nor the island group). If users want to read more about Malta, they should use the search engine and not this article. That being said, I would like to inform Mangojuice that I will not go further with this issue, if Pietru upstain from deletionist crusades against the article, and with claims that cannot be supported with a number of reliable sources. -- Imbris (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Imbris' nonsense replacement of Bichon Maltaise (something he attempted at Pharaoh Hound, before being conclusively denied). This article should not be made to suffer these sorts of attacks at the whim of one editor. As is made clear above, his ideas regarding a link to Malta Island are equally obscure. Beyond the addition of information from academically disdained sources and article re-arrangement to camouflage any reference to Malta, where are the sterling edits that make several pages of discussion and pointless sniping worthwhile? The article is itself poor. And rather than work on any of that, all that's been done is waste time. Mangojuice, it would be very helpful if you could find the time to work on this article. I'm sure Imbris would leap at the opportunity to work alongside you, making this article something more than the shambles of anecdote, whimsy and diabolically twisted grammar it is right now. Pietru (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Barking

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)

History

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)

Cleaning up this Article

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)

Well-said. At this point, I'm ready to support banning the two edit-warriors from this article, and letting people who are interested in actually improving the article edit it. It's obvious that, at this point, Pietru and Imbris are only concerned about pushing their individual POV. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The only one who is pushing the matter is Pietru il-Boqli, with no real contribution and long time possession over the biased versions of the article through the history of the article. I will not take IP users seriously because they mean only to distrub, distort and share Pietru's blame with me. This is what the Crotchety Old Man wants to share blame of Pietru's editing with me. I hope that his tactic fail, and that Mangojuice realize what Pietru is trying to do.

(1) Shugercoat the breed as if it is perfect

(2) Weasle-wording the Malta POV as much as possible

(3) Deny all other sources as obsolete

This is why he is against of using any words, names etc. related with Melita (even the Aristotle himself and his first giving name to the dog, by Pietru is vandalisation)

Imbris (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, you are escalating things. Stop it. And please, when you edit the article, make changes one at a time separately and explain each one. Mangojuice^talk 12:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the poorly worded intro; an admin should do something about Imbris asap. He/she has been nothing but tiresome, especially when required to explain vapid edits and brusque behaviour. Pietru (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, your intro is riddled with weasel words and POV. It is not the product of consensus. Pietru (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all the intro has not been written by me, it is a referenced version of other editors, which I have suplemented by the mention of the FCI.

Second, I have not initiated the description subtitle, it is also a referenced version of other editors. I have put it under the title history of the breed subtitle/section and below the history section.

Third, I have discussed, discussed, initiated RfC, upheld it, discussed even more. All that time you have been sipping accusations, not discussing the issues, etc.

Fourth, I have explained every line of my editing complete with sources, stop your agenda and acting like a police inspector.

I have not riddled the intro, and it is a product of concensus. It is a rephrased sentence from a FCI source, which was phrased by the other editor.

From the very begining of his editing of this article Pietru maintained a shugarcoated version which denied previously commited compromises like the one presented there.

Imbris (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy?

What points, specifically, are in dispute regarding factual accuracy? I would like to get that dispute tag resolved. Mangojuice^talk 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The second and the seventh point of the RfC. -- Imbris (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just discuss any changes you want to make, here on the talk page. Lots of people have to waste lots of time to revert your crap. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This section of the talk page is meant to serve as the discussion point about the tag {{disputed}}. Also my edits are not what you call them. You should discuss before reverting because I have discussed every edit I made in the previous sections on this talk page and in its archive. Also I have used summary line to describe my editing (as requested by the admin Mangojuice) and I have made my edits as analitical as possible (as requested by the admin Mangojuice). -- Imbris (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, I'm removing the tag. These are not disputes about factual accuracy of the current text -- you haven't brought up anything about the article that you feel is inaccurate, there are just some changes that not everyone agrees on. And by the way, I would appreciate it if you stopped trying to drop my name and my admin status as if it's a trump card. I'm just another editor here. Mangojuice^talk 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that on Wikipedia we should edit with show preview and not in segments, it felt strange but I complied with your request to edit in small, edit summarized segments. This is why I have mentioned your user name and wiki-status. I haven't used it as a way of improving chances of consiliation with other users, or as a strengthening tool for my editing. I have used it to describe why I am editing in such unconventional way. I will not put the tag back to the article before throuroughly describing the dispute (which is not solved). -- Imbris (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

History section

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. Mangojuice^talk 14:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am all for the timeline, and the periodisation looks ok. But avoiding references for the greater good of the summary of all sources is not a good way of reaching the set goal (FL). We are here now, but tommorow... Who will stop some future editor from deleting entire paragraphs on the basis it is not properly sourced. Lets say, there are a few users interested of the breed and nobody else. They change, delete, rephrase and then one decent user comes along and find out that she/he should start the entire work again, collecting sources, citing, referencing, discussing the matter on the talk page with the previously mentioned hypotetical group.

I cannot support making of a draft that should be definitive because you have insisted on Meleda, and think sources from other parts of the World invalid for the Free Encyclopaedia in the English language. Look around, the times when (if ever) this Wiki was exclusively for the English language mother-tongue speaker, for the English language sources, those times long passed. This Wikipedia became the Encyclopaedia of the entire World - using materials from all sides, quoting almost everything.

Simply, if you keep on going about how we should wikilink to Malta article instead of the Malta Island article, and in the same time insist on Meleda. It is very strange to me.

Imbris (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, you think that just because you haven't proven your point about including Croatian terminology, that I disregard non-English sources. I admittedly will not use them myself, not being able to read them, but I have no objection to them. I do feel, though, that whatever claims there are in non-English sources ought to be translated back to English for this Wikipedia. Mangojuice^talk 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Everything should be translated, so why not translating Meleda? Why do you insist on using the untranslated Italian word for the island? Why should not we use Malta Island when the user can if interested click there in the [[Malta Island]] to go to [[Malta]]. It is very dubious why should the history be summarized without clear quotation of sources, naturally I do not mean we insert entire paragraphs. The sources for Mljetski pas/psić are from three different time periods of Croatian cynological terminology, from Austro-Hungarian Empire, Yugoslavia and Republic of Croatia. -- Imbris (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this irrelevant issue again. I've asked you repeatedly to explain what kind of importance is attributed to the Croatian name in sources other than its mere existence and you have never been able to give any answer. I started this section to talk about the structure of the History section and you've used it to keep beating a dead horse. Mangojuice^talk 05:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) The issue is not irrelevant. (2) I have not started anything, but answered why summarized form is not appropriate + expressed doubts on the attempt of not including sources (in general). (3) Then you recollected that I have expressed a general interest on inclusion of sources regarding the Mljetski psić for the solemn benefit of listing the names in most prominent location. I have had no intent of using the sources for anything else, naturally if the article should be biased towards general association those sources might be used to reference some other interesting points. (4) The explanation is perfectly clear, using relevant sources for interesting names of the dog in Italy and Croatia, the Maltese language doesn't have relevant sources for including possible names in that language. (5) No I haven't used the discussion to run away from its topic. You have expressed that a summarized form would be written and I explained why we should be more inclusive with the sources and even quotations from those sources in order to present the issues completely and without slightest misinterpretation. Naturally the sources I pled we include contain various usable material and are completely relevant, if that was your question. See (3) for other explanation. -- Imbris (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris problems with Pietru

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)

[9] Pietru il-Boqli's editing spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine are not helpful. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

'Spicked'? Is the veneer well and truly off, are you being pointedly racist? Or is this another instance of Imbrisese (scan the article for various examples). Pietru (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)