Talk:Maltese dog

Previous discussions have been archived to /Archive 2

As it says above... 122.200.166.113 (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone who has been reverting this IP's archiving attempts... I approve this archival; this page has been a mess for some time. Please discuss any opposition to archival here on the talk page instead of just reverting. Thank you. Tan | 39 15:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I have no opinion on the recent IP changes / reversions to the article. Looks like MJ has some issues; don't look to me for any opinions :-) Tan | 39 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see no reason to archive all of the previous discussions, like History section and Sicilian Melita? which were not concluded. Isn't it customary to archive only older discussions and not the recent ones. Thanks for commenting. -- Imbris (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the "Sicilian Melita" discussion was concluded, I sought input and have decided I don't want to make a change on that issue. But regardless, if you or anyone feel the need to make any further comment on any specific discussions, why don't you just bring that one section out of the archive and make your comment? Mangojuice^talk 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass reverts

I'd like to call on the IP editor 122.200.166.113 to explain why he feels the need to revert to a revision from long ago. Things have been difficult here, but that doesn't mean that the old version is better than the new one. The lede for one thing is much inferior in your version. I have no objection to merging certain things from your version of the History section. But you seem to have done this on the basis that you "told" Imbris and Pietru to take a hike, and threatened to revert if they did not obey: this is inappropriate. Please discuss substance, not editors. Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit absurd. You can't discuss substance without discussing the two editors in question. Neither has had any interest in improving this article for quite some time now. It's all about egos and one-ups. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The solution to that is, and has always been, that we should simply focus on substance. Commenting on the editors is bad because it simply inflames them and makes things worse. We all need to stop. Mangojuice^talk 18:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Look: I know Wiki has always had some well-intentioned belief in "consensus", and generally that is to be encouraged simply because it usually brings the best results. However, "consensus" fails miserably to deal with bullies and trolls, for the basic reason that these do not listen to reason, nor do they care about it. This is when not only do we not comment about the editors, we instruct them to go away in the first place, and then frogmarch them out of the place in the second place. The third place is to make sure they cannot come back. Mangojuice: you are correct, I do not own the article; however, I saw very little evidence of "collaborative work" -- unless it was contributing to the ethnic POV battle of Melitae/Malat. Your problem is that I did something constructive where Wiki had failed utterly. I have commented in other places that it is this kind of shenanigan that makes Wiki into a less than useful waste of cyberspace. From my "POV", you seem to be supporting both of Pietru and Imbris against each other: this is more than inappropriate. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Was I "punishing" Pietru and Imbris? Get real! How can I punish them -- I am not an admin, I cannot use the only sanction available, blocking. Understand, in taking the decision to revert to a sound previous version and totally rewrite that with appropriate citations and removal of the completely irrelevant and ethnic POV material concerning Melitae/Malat, I was not punishing, I was bringing the article to somewhere close to a C or B class for the enjoyment of the wider community. You say "we all need to stop." Why don't you? 122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not been discussing other editors. I've been calling, again and again, for a substantive discussion about what would be best for the article. Would you like to comment on that? I would love to hear your opinions. I truly do not understand why you think your version was the better article but I'm open to discussing it; from my point of view, it was less well written and not nearly so well referenced. Mangojuice^talk 01:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To "122.200.166.113", Whatever the issue may be with the two conflicting editors, it does not give you the right to go and make those changes to the article. There was nothing explicitly wrong with the previous version. Your edits were reverted due to the fact that you removed extensive sections of referenced material.-Binary TSO ^???

My two cents - the recent changes and discussion between the IP and Mangojuice have been the most productive collaboration this article has seen in a year. Reading below, I see nothing but good things happening with this article now. As far as I am concerned, Pietru (on a one-month block) and Imbris (not blocked, but under final warning for edit-warring on this article) are effectively topic-banned from this article. Tan | 39 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"The lede for one thing is much inferior in your version."

OK. To business.

1. The lead-in (intro):  Why is the Pietru/Imbris version allowed to be totally out of line with every other article in Wiki?  The intro is supposed to be a short, concise overview of the article, a "snapshot", not a sub-article in its own right.
2. The info-box:  Why is the Pietru/Imbris version allowed to be totally out of line with every other dog article in Wiki?  Specifically, country of patronage?  What other dog article has this?
3. Maltese mixed-breed dogs:  Why is the Pietru/Imbris version allowed to be totally out of line with every other dog article in Wiki?  This would have been instantly removed as "completely irrelevant, discuss in a dedicated article" -- which I think does exist.
4. Crossbred Maltese dogs:  See previous entry.
5. Barking:  This contains material which is duplicated in "Temperament", and is treated much more thoroughly in my rewrite, but only once.  My version also addresses the shortcomings in tne Burke's Backyard analysis -- my academic training makes this mandatory, as it eliminates POV.
   1. Botoli:  is an Italian word for "artichoke" [[1]].  It also seems to be used in a non-derogatory way by the people of Arezzo to describe themselves -- but my Italian is weak [[2]].  "botolo", on the other hand, is defined as "small, often snarly dog" in Wiktionary (my emphasis); it with "botoli" is an alternate name for the Bichon Bolognaise[[3]].  I would say the use of these Italian terms here is a gratuitous "Trivia" item.
6. History:  Where is the detailed timeline of origins, ancestry and migration route?  What about the change in conformation over time, the near loss of the breed, and the development of the current standard?

That should be sufficient to chew upon for the moment. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am opening this up for a popular vote: which stays -- the Pietru/Imbris edit war or the [122.200.166.113 version]?

122.200.166.113 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of text

I'm removing the vote section; Wikipedia does not operate through voting; see WP:NOT. Besides, we should probably look to combine the best points of both versions rather than set up this false dichotomy. Anyway, let's move on. I don't know what the patronage thing is about, I've got no objection to removing that from the lede, but it is a line in the infobox template, so it should probably remain there. As for the rest of the lede, I think we need to discuss the name, since an amateur reader would expect to see a sentence like "The Maltese dog is named after Malta," unfortunately, the truth is not so simply explained, and I think the current version does a pretty good job. The laundry list of other names may be a bit out of place. I definitely don't think we need a discussion of hair vs. fur, and I think the opening sentence is much better in the current version. I would not mind some more text about the physical characteristics of the dog. Crossbreed/Mixed-breed: I looked at some other dog articles and I saw some coverage of this in several other articles. I see no purpose to the Maltese Mixed-Breed section, and will remove it momentarily. Barking: I agree Barking is a temperament issue and these sections should be merged. I do think the "botoli" stuff might be worth keeping... I myself have removed it before so I'm certainly not attached to it. I am concerned about the temperament part of the article, though, because of the low level of sourcing, and its sloppy consideration of properly raised vs. problem dogs.

Finally, the History section. I'll admit I'm not especially happy with the current section, but that's partly because I was waiting for the edit warring to die down before taking my own stab at it. The current version does too much argumentative quoting of sources, but I do think it covers many of the critical things. Your version, by contrast, is better written, but definitely gives the impression to the reader that the breed is from Malta, despite the fact that a great many sources express doubt about that. That is something Imbris has been working on since he came to this article, and given what I've read in the sources, I do think that version is inappropriately skewed towards a theory that few actually hold to. On specific text: there seemed to be a workable consensus to not include the text of the poem about Publius' dog; to reiterate my argument, including the whole poem puts entirely too much stress on this one anecdote. Also I see no reason to include the other primary text from Ariosto at all. Other than that, though, I think the two History sections could be mainly merged: the writing in yours is pretty good as to possible pre-recorded origins, but yours is pretty thin in discussing early writings and the naming issue; the current version is better there, but could stand some rewriting so it sounds more like prose and less like notes. I like your paragraph about the near extinction in the 19th century, too. Mangojuice^talk 04:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm against the "botoli" passage. I don't think it's interesting history, but since the source is 100 years old, and we have another source saying that the breed almost died out around the time the Botoli source was written, I don't believe we can trust that that name refers to the modern breed. Mangojuice^talk 04:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, I kept the Martial epigram simply because it had been there forever, and Ariosto's poetry simply because Martial was there.  I see no good reason to keep them, my heart won't break.
2. Normally (on most other dogs) I wouldn't bother about the hair/fur bit, but the standards do make a strong point, and that should be explained, no matter how briefly.  This leads into
3. The general style of Wiki (whether or not it's written down) is to keep the intro short, but give a useable overview of what's coming.  Any discussion of the naming issue, which must necessarily be detailed, would obscure and falsely colour the rest of the article.
4. I thought I had succeeded in removing any fantasy that the dog was Maltese rather than simply named after the island...  That's one of the reasons I condensed so much of the edit-war and pointed out that the island has no known traces of the breed.
5. Are the early writings that important?  This is not a University degree thesis!  (Ah, THAT'S how it works! I was having trouble with the numbered list...)  And the naming issue should have been covered in the first para of the History section with the "laundry list" of other names.
6. Sourcing in the Temperament section is not a problem -- I simply left what had been written, it is only a matter of inserting references, most of which already exist in the rest of the article.
7. The near-extinction of the breed must necessarily include the change in standards over the centuries -- most people are completely unaware that coloured Malteses could be had relatively recently, and possibly may still exist.  In my book this is far more important than where the name came from.
8. If we keep the Burke's Backyard bit -- which is definitely relevant -- then we must keep my analysis of the published results, to give the balance which Mr Burke was careful to leave out.

I've taken the liberty of inserting a sub-heading for ease of editing and reference. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Some late additions:

1. Last para in "History" (Pietru/Imbris), contains a claim that Malteses may have been used for pig herding -- I have found no reference for this, and it should be deleted.  I think the truth is that a herd of pigs would have given the large Spitz and Molosser dogs trouble, let alone a 6 or 7kg proto-Maltese!
2. Imbris has insisted on the Central Mediterranean area as the point of origin in the intro, which directly contradicts the History section.

These inconsistencies must be cleared up which ever course we wind up with.  122.200.166.113 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On the hair/fur thing, if that's the case, it should be in the article somewhere, but it seems kind of specific for the lede. I think the last paragraph in the lede now is appropriately short and should stay, but the second one could be moved elsewhere, perhaps into the history section (although even there it seems out of place. I did see a source that discussed those various names and their significance but I'll have to go look for it again). Re: Malta theory, your version doesn't say so explicitly but it is implied and nothing works to the contrary. I think combining the two history sections will work well. The early writings are, in my view, quite important: if we're going to talk about ancient history of this breed, it would be pretty standard to discuss both early direct evidence and early writings... plus, the whole issue of how the breed got its name is interesting (and directly related to the early writings) and needs more than the simple word root explanation offered by the FCI. I agree about the extinction bit, and I have no objection to your text on the Burke's Backyard part, though I think that's somewhat overemphasizing one source. Pig herding, fine. No opinion on the central Mediterranean region in the lede issue right now. Mangojuice^talk 20:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The pig-herding was inserted by an IP on 19 Sept 2008 @18:27.  Looks like petty vandalism to me.  122.200.166.113 (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to make editing easier

(1) hair/fur thing, agree with Mangojuice. "Puppy cut" not in the lede. "silky white hair" not in the lede.

(2) Second para of the lede should go into the History section, agree with both editors

(3) Last para of the lede stays + explaining the Greek word Melita and the Italian word Meleda

(4) The lede should contain explanatory (one) sentence about the long term patronage - Option 2 This might go into the Description section. Waiting for Mangojuice to decide. The patronage is used in Pharaoh Hound and Samoyed (dog).

(5) Combining the two versions without poetry and overplaying Publius/Martial and please without the sentence about general association (the lede is clear enough about it)

(6) The word is botolo and if some other type of Bichon was also called botolo (nouns conjugate, thus botoli) it is not grounds of dismissing the information.

There is argument on whether the Tenerife is the original stock for all Bichons, or whether the Maltese (which seems to be an old type found on the islands before even the Barbet was known) is the progenitor of the Bichons, through its breeding with the Barbets.

— from Bichon#History

(7) If Mangojuice wish to "shugarcoat" it is his perogative, but the merging of barking with temperament has been done in a way that deletes valuable content from the book and from the tables. I am not sure why Mangojuice made that merge in this fashion. Where is the The Maltese will not appreciate rough handling and can become snappy with children thus not particularly suited for those families with small children previously cited sentence lost in that merge.

(8) Pig herding should stay until a source can be found. It is in the article for ages, tag it with {{fact}} and wait for at least a couple of months. Maybe we are talking about some small breed of pig possibly on Manila Islands?

(9) Against any analysis by IP-user which borders original research.

(10) Near extinction in the view of the English encyclopaedias' from the time is interesting but not definite, plays no part in the case of the word botolo (nouns conjugate, thus botoli)

(11) If Central Mediterranean Area is not for the lede it is most certainly for the infobox (being official), but we should definately list the Mediterranean as the area of origin.

(12) Central Mediterranean area is not contradicting the history section, I have not "insisted" on it but merely quoted a most reliable source.

(13) The IP-user threatened other editor, but did he get away with it?

(14) History section should stay, including the name-list in it place like before (note: I did not put it there)

(15) The temperament is "shugarcoated" and over-positively biased

Imbris (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Some responses, point by point: (4) I've just looked into what patronage means. Basically, it means nothing, it's an FCI designation because they want every dog breed to have a country "responsible" for it. It doesn't really reflect on the dog breed, it's just something technical of relevance to dog shows. So I'm definitely against this being in the lede; it's in the infobox and I'm happy with it there, I think that's sufficient. But in any case, it should not be in the lede; if it must be in the text it should be somewhere else. (7/15) First, it's spelled "sugarcoat". Second, please WP:AGF, I was just trying to combine two sections on similar material that were for some reason in separate places. The temperament section (the new one, after Frozenguild kept removing the unsourced paragraphs) is pretty boiled-down and seems to reflect a few sources I was able to look at, but I'm happy for it to be improved, expanded, whatever, if it's done in a sourced manner. I will put the citation from Burke's Backyard back. (8) The Botoli/Botolo section is not, IMO, relevant to temperament because it's so long out of date, and that section is clearly talking about the breed as it exists today. In any case, this is not a designation of an expert but a popular opinion and should not be mixed in with the kind of material we have there. If we were discussing the breed's image through the ages it might be relevant there, but this is not the kind of fact we should be starting with... and even in the most generous viewpoint, I think there's no need to actually mention the terminology, but just to use the source to support a general statement; it's too hyper-specific. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(4) Italy gained patronage in Interlaken, that should go in the description, the country of patronage is the country responsible for the FCI standard, that is certainly more that a show thing.

(6) Botolo should be returned in the history section after the list of all those historical names. That paragraph was in the history section before. Roman Ladies Dog is not long out of date? The factor of time passage has no bearing when history is concerned. Please return the paragraph, because it seems I cannot (Tanthalas39's unilatteral decision with no support in the WP:1RR). I do not see why this interesting fact cannot be portrayed in the history section of the article.

(7) Where is the The Maltese will not appreciate rough handling and can become snappy with children thus not particularly suited for those families with small children previously cited sentence lost in that merge. + I have always AGF when you were concerned. Why that lecture about spelling? This is a talk page, we are not bound by extensive spelling, grammar, etc. stuff, not here, not by any WP. Assuming GF I thank you for your lecture, but in the future, please lecture me on my talk page and not in the discussions about articles.

New comments: Removing Darwin 6000. is strange, even with a source. The Greek amphora is dated 500 BC, but also 1000 BC (by Iiris Hyytinen, Ratimir Orban). If the source you used is correct, than the other one is not correct, but did you check Cutillo, Nicholas. 'The Complete Maltese', Howell Book House, 1986, ISBN 0-87605-209-X (this was the previously used source, which many tend to quote).

I haven't checked the Cutillo source but the belief of 6000 b. C. is largely present in the community which reference Cutillo.

Imbris (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(4) Being responsible for the FCI standard is really not very interesting material for the lede of the article. Sounds like it would belong in a paragraph about shows and standards if we had one. But we don't, really, we only have the infobox. (6) This is the last I will say on the matter. On rereading the source behind this passage I conclude that Italians did not name the breed "botoli" but rather sometimes referred to individual dogs this way. Similar to how one might call a specific dog a cur, but that doesn't make "cur" the name of its breed. I maintain that even if this were an obscure breed name, it is not worth including because of its obscurity, and whatever historical importance it has is trivial. (7) Spelling: just trying to help, I know you are always looking to improve your English. As for that sentence, I will return it when I get around to it, as I said. On Darwin 6000: I took a look around, and you're right, the date of 6000 BC is very popular on the web, though I couldn't find it in any books on Google Books. I did see web sites citing Cutillo. I think what I'd like to do is simply remove this temporarily: we have two reliable sources, one says 6000 and one says 600, and I still can't locate the original quote from Darwin: this concerns me because Darwin was not big on naming dates of origins in the first place and I wonder whether he really means Maltese specifically, or lap dogs generally, or just domesticated dogs for that matter. A search for "6000 BC" in the complete works of Darwin online came back with no hits; there are very few mentions of "lap dog" and none of Maltese, at least not by that name. In fact, and I think this is most telling, a google search for the phrase "Darwin placed the origin" returns only 9 hits, eight of which are about Maltese dogs, and the last is not about any species. Surely this indicates something strange, as if Darwin placed the origins only of Maltese dogs. Mangojuice^talk 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Current version

@Mangojuice -- re:"rv; first, I don't understand what this is saying. Second, the embedded external link violates WP:EL. Third, the link doesn't discuss Maltese dogs specifically". (2) What part of WP:EL does the embedded external link violate? Apart from the untenable desire for inline citations at every point? (1) In basic English, this is saying that Don Burke was looking for a headline to further his "reputation" as an expert on things to do with the Oz lifestyle. (3) No it doesn't. How strange. Does it really matter that a link which is not specifically Maltese-oriented is used, given the subject matter? 122.200.166.113 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'll go further. Including the bald statement "This breed is Australia's most dumped dog." without any balancing research can per se be construed as WP:POV. 122.200.166.113 (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) Indicates to me that you are trying to criticize Burke directly; that's inappropriate per POV. I would love to include counterpoints but per WP:OR they have to be published counterpoints. (2) WP:EL says that external links should never be embedded in article text; they should be in the external links section or references section only. (3) My point is that I didn't understand what the purpose of including that link is, or the relevance to this article. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In History, 2nd para: "For Kinology the most important fact is that above the drawing there is a title Melitaie, which were latter called Melitae and after that Meledae.[15]": what, exactly, is Kinology? "I don't understand what this is saying." 122.200.166.113 (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means; it's a bit too thesis-like for me anyway. I'll remove it when I get around to merging the two history sections. Mangojuice^talk 13:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should not be removed but possibly rephrased. Why? Because it is of some importance to describe the user of this encyclopaedia that Melita (Melitae, etc.) was at some point called Meleda and called by the local population Mljet from times of Constantine VII. This fact is not clearly presented in the current version, also that Melita in Greek language means honey, that the word was used by Romans as well and that by some it means exactly the same thing like the common root malat.

Imbris (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Publius vs Saint Publius

In the version supported by the IP-user, he wrote: "Among others were Publius, Roman governor of Malta and father of Saint Publius,"

Also there were apparently two figures called Saint Publius, this is suggested in External links section of the article.

The IP-user suggests that the father of Saint Publius was also called Publius and that he (the father) owned the dog.

I would suggest:

1. Removal of wikilink to Saint Publius and if must wikilink to Publius (disambiguation);
2. Removal of the name of Publius' little dog, the one specimen named Issa should not be listed in the article without the explanation, that, in antiquity the island of Vis was called Issa in the Greek language and the Roman literature;
3. Replacing of biased phrasing had a Maltese, about Publius' Maltese with had a little dog and about Publius' pet;
4. Omitting the title of Publius, why his title Roman governor of Malta should be in the article is beyond my comprehension;
5. Omitting the fact that Publius (the father) apparently had a son named Publius who apparently became the bishop of Malta;
6. Respecting the fact that a source used for Martial's poem speaks of Publius having a lap-dog, nothing more, nothing less.

Imbris (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this myself yesterday. The sources are not clear at all on which Publius is the one that owned Issa. I think you're right, it's a good idea to link to the disambiguation page until we can be clear which one was meant. That said, it is essential to mention that Publius was the Roman governor of Malta, because although it's circumstantial, it's something many sources point out in describing the association between Malta and the dog breed. I think it's fine to replace the phrasing "had a Maltese" as you suggest, but I don't believe it's "biased phrasing." Also, if we don't say it was the Roman governor of Malta, it's ambiguous: we ought to do our best to identify the right Publius. Mangojuice^talk 12:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on further examination, the IP's version is unsourced. I've been unable to find any information discussing Saint Publius' father's name; his father was apparently healed by the apostle Paul, but that's all anyone says about him. Saint Publius was a governor of Malta, who later became a Bishop; he met the apostles as governor. Also, checking the dates, Publius was martyred in AD 112, and Martial lived from 29 AD to 104 AD [4]. The full text of the epigram in question says nothing about Issa belong to a father, or an elder, or anyone other than simply Publius. So I think the IP was engaging in, at best, WP:OR. The sources indicate this was Saint Publius, so I'm changing the link back. Mangojuice^talk 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I say that IP sourced his sentence? The father of Saint Publius was a Roman governor of Malta and the Acts of the Apostles describe his son (Publius) as being only the chief of the island (whatever that means). The source from Floriana or the Parish church of Floriana near Valletta speaks clearly that the father of Saint Publius was a Roman governor of Malta.

The source you provided doesn't speak of Saint Publius but of a Publius (+ there also were, apparently, two figures named St. Publius). The source used before [and apparently now also :) ] was better because it provided a full view (the source now provides a limitted view of the text on books.google.com).

Even the wikipedia article on Saint Publius doesn't claim that he was the Roman governor of Malta and almost all who cite the fact that Publius had a lap-dog quote that he (that Publius) was a Roman governor of Malta.

I do not see any neccessity for listing that during the first century part, it overestimates the value of a one specimen named Issa.

Clement of Alexandria was also canonised, but I did not write, during the second century and Saint in that sentence.

In the near future I will find the time to make a section called Perception where Greek perception of the dog, Clement of Alexandria and Briggs on botolo (conjunction: botoli) will be present.

Imbris (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Martial' friend Publius

We have gone the wrong way about this. Martial' works should be what counts, since there is the entire story. There has been lot of writting about Martial.

Publius: this individual cannot be identified. He is mentioned several times. Again in relation with a puppy, in 1.109.5. In 2.57 he is mentioned as a friend of the poet's and a model of elegance in dress. In 10.98 he acts as a host to the poet, who is struck by the beauty of his slaves (according to the index nominum [cf. 519] of Shackleton Bailey, the name is applied to an invented character). In the last line, in fact, homosexual inclinations are insinuated in Publius. In 7.72 there is a mention of another Publius, who is not to be identified with the above.

Palomino wrote that he followed the example of Publius, an excellent [ancient Roman] painter, who portrayed his belowed little bitch Issa in order to immortalise her, as [the Latin poet] Martial wittily relates: he could have said the same about Velázquez...

In short. Martial was Publius friend, Martial was irritated that Publius' steward is more elegant indeed than Publius' wife, daughter, mother, and sister combined. The author decyphres Martial poetry and quotes Mario Citroni who think that Martial used erotic allusiveness, which Issa is apparently no less. Citroni (1975, 336) think that Martial imitated the theme used in Greek and Roman literature where the dog Issa stand for the phallus of Publius.

Publius was a common (among 20 others) Roman male first name generally abbreviated in writing to just P. we have Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus, a Publius who lived in the time of Nero, befrended with a poet.

Or, for another instance: Publius Dolabella, legate of praetorian rank on Issa

In conclusion Publius was (?) a old friend of Martial and in the same time Saint Publius is some other person. The father of Saint Publius, whom we do not know by name, was a Roman governor of Malta but Martial had not described his friend Publius as having a father who is a Roman governor.

Imbris (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the thing is, the sources you present don't say anything specifically about whether Martial's friend Publius was or wasn't the governor of Malta, or whether he was Saint Publius, just that they do not definitively identify him. But many of our other sources do say it was a Roman governor of Malta. I imagine that it may be merely an assumption of some scholar long ago that sources now quote blindly, who knows, but writing the passage this way would be original research. And POV, too, because we'd be placing an informed opinion of ours over that of the consensus of reliable sources.

You know, one thing that makes me so wary about your participation here is the way seem to consistently oppose every mention of Malta. What is it about Malta that bothers you so much? Mangojuice^talk 05:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why dismiss sources which specifically speak of Martial works. Publius in the context of the dog is mentioned only in Martial works (in the begining). Even Joe Fulda, Betsy Sikora Siino and Michele Earle-Bridges, who mentions Clement of Alexandria, speaks only of Publius (even if they mention him in the context of his aparent title of the Roman governor of Malta). No source speaks of Saint Publius possesing the dog. Please delete wikilink to Saint Publius.

It would not be POV to properly quote sources which relate to Martial. Citing Martial and refering to Saint Publius is unsourced and original research.

Sources are split on whether Saint Publius was the governor of Malta or his father was the governor of Malta (who had possesions on Malta). I have even found one source which clearly speak of Saint Publius' father being also called Publius. It was a very common name and in the not so ancient times sons received the first name of ones father.

Please stop assuming on my editing and stop questioning my motivation. Do I question yours, I have understood that you try to balance content of this article while I am not allowed to do so, nor wish to do so. I want to quote sources.

Martial friend named Publius (might even be fictional character) has nothing to do with Publius the Roman governor of Malta nor his son, also named Publius or many other persons and characters named Publius.

Imbris (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Linnaeus

Iiris Hyytinen wrote: Linné told these dogs to be the size of a squirrel. IP-user wrote quoting Iiris Hyytinen: Linnaeus held that the dog should be about the size of a squirrel. I do not belive that Linnaeus held that the dog should..., where is the source for his overestimate phrasing.

Imbris (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Linnaeus was not saying they should be that size, but saying that they were. But in any case, I don't believe we should be willing to believe Hyytinen's account of the causes for near-extinction. It's a less reliable source than books; I have found this one [5] that also mentions Linnaeus' description. Linnaeus wrote this in 1792, and apparently a source in the early 1600s described them as the size of ferrets, so they were that small for a long time. I'll take a stab at rewriting that now, let me know what you think. Mangojuice^talk 13:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to rewrite, even on that small of a thing? Or I am allowed?! Even WP:1RR might be applied only if Arbitration Committee decide so. I think that it is relevant to notice that in history the dog was bigger than afterwards it came to England where the entire drama of near extinction begun. The dog was spread all over the Planet, Mr. Lukey found his specimens in Manilla Islands. I have also found sources which speak only of Linnaeus' impression of the dog as being the size of a squirrel. I do not know what the article would gain by citing their impressions and in the same time not cite the testimony of Briggs on Italians using the word botolo/botoli in refferal to the dog.

The dog was not near extinction just because the English say so. In three English encyclopaedias from the end of 19 century and the beginning of 20 century we have the near extinction which might be nothing but a commerce scheme to advance sales.

The British Empire was enormous, but had not so large of an impact on the Old continent, did the British look everywhere to determine the breed extinction.

Coloured Malteses could be obtained from the south of France sentence should also be rephrased to The coloured Maltese were obtainable from the south of France if that is what Trudy Dalziel wanted to say by the following sentence The coloured Maltese were obtained from the South of France.

Imbris (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1RR does not prevent you from editing, it prevents you from reverting. What you are saying here is your own observation that perhaps it is the English that were responsible for this. But it is in no source, so it will not be included. Just because the English say so -- excuse me, but I will believe the encylopedias over your baseless claim that the encyclopedias were lying because they were trying to sell Maltese dogs. That's ridiculous. Mangojuice^talk 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no decision of placing me under 1RR, which allows only one revert, the 0RR doesn't allow any revert.

I have no standing about the IP-users edit that the English were responsible for the breed near extinction. I merely said that the grasp of the English naturalists (biologists, zoologists in todays terminology) was not global. I haven't said that the British encyclopaedical works were lying, I have said that we should look things in the context. Maltese were rare and expensive (to purchase), writters of English encyclopaedias quoted the sittation in the "market" of ideas, goods, pets, of that time. Salesman and breeders (kennels) of the time heating their product spoke of near extinction and ultimately extinction. This is why the English encyclopaedias quote near extinction. It has less to do with the small size of the cur but with the sittation in the market (which was in need for exclusive products).

What about the fact that we need to "comb" almost every sentence the IP-user "brought to the table", what about the fact that you delete sourced sentences just because you feel that they are not relevant. The Perception section should be in the article together with sourced comments about the dog.

Imbris (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

history revamp

You may have noticed a substantial rewrite of some of the History section. My aim here is to get away from the older choppy style of presenting one writing at a time. It's a bad style to write that way, mixing writings of real historical significance (such as Callimachus) with others that are much later and far less important. Those writers' words are important in that they are saying something valuable about the ancient writings. Also, I had to put in a passage about Strabo; I'm surprised it had been taken out, apparently Strabo is the writer that most originally point to for the Malta theory. I tried to focus on describing some of the later dispute about the name. I'm particularly happy that the Cramer source, dating back to the early 1800s, specifically noted that the origins issue was a dispute. That is a kind of luxury one rarely finds... usually there are just proponents on each side. Anyway. I think the history section has a pretty good coverage of the origins, the early writings, and issues about the origins of the name. What's lacking is ... well, everything else. Where should we start? Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You deleted Pliny the Elder, Bryant on origins where he mention the breed being Illyrian, Greek colonies in the Adriatic and Sybarites, Stephanus of Byzantium, Bochart, in his "Hierozoicon," also quotes Callimachus to be correct. Aldrovandus quotes freely from the other writers, especially as to the origin of this little dog, Blondus ascribing it to Spain and Gessner to Lyons.

And inserted Doctor Johannes Caius, mere physician who falsely quoted Callimachus and insist on Strabo who mentions Sicilian town of Melita, a place nobody knows where it was located (even back then) and most certainly not now. Strabo was not mentioned from the begining of this article and you really want to use his dubious writing (regarding the dog of course). I will repeat - Strabo was never part of the article.

So Callimachus needs no itteration but Strabo does (in the form of Doctor Johannes Caius, why that Doctor part?)

All the ancient writters should be mentioned in this form or another. If Strabo is used then there is no need for the Publius, Roman governor of Malta.

Removing what you call a stray sentence fragment is not a good way of doing anything. Removing the fact that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, pronounces in favour of Slavic Mliet is pushing every limit.

Imbris (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Callimachus was not mixed but the time frame and the flow of history was respected, what cannot be said for the type of segmentation currently in place, Martial is way off.

Also why do you continue to insist on using wikilink [[Malta]] when speaking about the islands of Malta and Mljet were called Melita. Isn't it better to use [[Malta Island|Malta]] in such cases. Also Mljet was first to be called Melita, so it should be placed before Malta in any context where the two are compared by their Greek and Roman name Melita.

Imbris (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't you spread your editing in several smaller edits, first you should have deleted what you wanted to delete in order we could see how much did you delete. You have insisted I change the style of editing to little edits in order you can track what I have changed in more detail. I must ask you, why didn't you follow on your advice (the same you gave me). I hope you would in the future. -- Imbris (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The burden's on you here. You are the reason all this is taking place. Do not, for one second, pretend to be naive about the whole thing. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I explained my edits here now; they are not actually several different changes with different explanations, there's just one change though it's relatively larger. This kind of revamp needed to be done all at once. I didn't delete Pliny the Elder or Bryant; they are just where they belong now -- as sources, not as points of discussion. The article said nothing about Pliny the Elder and included an inappropriate quote from Bryant -- why should we quote that passage but not quote the Martial poem which is so revered in the sources. As for Strabo, I am sorry but the previous version was extremely biased without mentioning Strabo: it was basically a list of points in favor of the Mljet origin story with basically no balancing points. Strabo is one of the main reasons for the Malta theory; some sources actually equate Sicilian Melita with Malta. Caius -- you're kidding, right? I thought you liked the Hyytinen source, it specifically brings up the theory that Caius' miscategorization of Callimachus is partly responsible for the apparent common belief that the breed's origins were in Malta. Mangojuice^talk 04:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag

Imbris, please be specific. What, exactly, do you think is POV; which passages and why. Similarly, which passages do you think are factually inaccurate, and why. Mangojuice^talk 04:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed the tag before I answered to your special request, while you haven't answered on my writings on this very talk page.

(1) Deletion of sourced sentences that are not WP:SYN is what is complete POV.

(2) Linking to Malta in those cases where island of Melita is mentioned instead of linking to Malta Island, this should be done at least in the history section if not in all the places where a surplus of those wikilinks exist.

(3) Reiteration of Callimachus as done by Caius, this shows what the intention was.

(4) The Finnish source said lots of things but we have not used all of it, there are interesting paragraphs that we have not used because God forbid that we use something that you or some other editor dislike.

(5) Deletion of Czech author Tatiana Krömerova is also symptomatic.

Imbris (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the IP editor was the one who removed it. I didn't put it back because I was trying to avoid undoing all the subsequent edits. Put it back if you like. Ok, this answer is not sufficient. You can criticize edits but I am asking you to mention specific shortcomings of the article text as it is now. What POV, exactly, do you think the article inappropriately emphasizes -- I'm not even clear on that. If anything, the article comes down quite squarely on the side of Callimachus, it just now mentions the opposing views that were absent before. Yes, I did not preserve every single argument in favor Callimachus, but I think there is plenty that is there. The previous version had a real POV problem, because it was written like an argument for one view of the issue, rather than a way of describing the disagreement: and it's not just my conclusion that sources disagree, several of the sources (most explicitly, Bryant) actually comment on it directly. Specific responses: (2) One more time, I will explain my response to this, but trying to hold the article hostage via a dispute tag over an issue where consensus is against you is tendentious. Malta Island is about a geographical feature. Malta is about the place as a political entity. No one is talking about geography here. If there was an article specifically about the city or state or whatever was in Malta at the time, I wouldn't mind linking to that (as it would be appropriate to link to Gaul rather than France when talking about the ancient world), but linking to an article about the geography of Malta is senseless. Pietru agreed, and I expect this issue to be dropped unless other editors start agreeing with you. (3/4): Quoting from Hyytinen: Doctor to H.M. the Queen Elisabeth I. Cajus ... reiterated Kallomacho but claimed that the breed origined in the fishing village of Melita in Sicily. Changing of the name Melita into Malta happened in England because Englishmen had quite uncertain knowledge about world beyond their own imperium. Hyytinen is arguing that Caius was partly responsible for the misconception that this breed is associated with Malta, but since she doesn't come right out and say it the best we can do is explain the point in the source. (1/5) say nothing about the current text. Mangojuice^talk 03:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not about geography?! See List of Graeco-Roman geographers and try to recall some of the names we spoke about in the article. You are speaking of my answer as not sufficient. The deletion of ancient authors who support Callimachus and are mentioned in recent literature, this is very much POV. It is clear that you deleted that content simply because of balancing between the island of Mljet and the island of Malta.

Listing Pietru as some sort of a viable editor whose opinion on wikilinking the word Malta as much as possible is strange. Why do you have the need to support Pietru and punish me by deleting my edits.

Why this quoting of Hyytinen when you have no intention to include what other writers include. No real connection with Malta, except Strabo belived the dogs were exported or transported whence. Publius was some obscure Martial friend and that is it.

Bryant could have been paraphrased without leaving out the info he collected, his info has background in the sources, but did you tag the paragraph as in need for sources, no, did you attempt to rephrase, no. You noticed Illyrian and Adriatic, and delete away.

This much for now, since you did not reply to many of the sections on this talk page.

Imbris (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else care to comment on whether we should link to Malta or Malta Island in general in this article? Again, deletion of material is not inherently a POV problem. I rewrote and explained my reasons for doing so. If you are to sustain an argument that there is a POV problem in this article, you need to explain in what sense the current article text is problematic so that we can start discussing it and fixing it. Mangojuice^talk 04:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you calling out, Pietru's sock ; the IP-user 122.200.166.113 (who may be one of the editors). You have protected the version with comprehensive Callimachus quotations when 122.200.166.113 deleted them. You have promised 122.200.166.113 to merge his history section with the history section before the "deletionist crusade". Did you see what denialism is in place in the FCI-Standard No. 65, they do not mention Callimachus. Did you see how Fulda deceives his readers by false claims on Callimachus, Pliny the Elder, Stephanus of Byzantine. Why are you doing the same. What is the purpose of Caius when we do not have ancient writers mentioned in the history section but some Caius is more important. I have nothing against using Caius if you return Callimachus supporters from the ancient times. -- Imbris (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, which prevents IP users and brand new accounts from editing the article but not estabished users like you. Ok, if your main argument is that I hadn't objected to the way the article was before my revamp, you're wrong. I had been planning this type of rewrite for a long time, ever since you started discussing the RFC with me on my talk page. In the meantime, I don't see that there is a real POV dispute. Editing is underway but you don't say that the article is unbalanced even, and even if you do think that you need to be specific, you can't just slap the tag up there in order to hold the article hostage to demands. I'm leaving it up for now, but the "factual accuracy" part is clearly unjustified since you still haven't mentioned anything having to do with the accuracy of what's currently written. For specific issue, I'm spinning out two new sections for discussion, so it's easier to follow. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have spoken about the protection in virtue of reverting you have done, and others when 122.200.166.113 tryed to delete content from the article. I have said that sumarized version is bad because this dog has a long history which should be presented more thoroughly. You are the one who insist on sumarized version and if you had planned this all the time you should have told us of your intention. You have not discussed anything but accused me of SYN, which should be in reallity a nudge to collect sources and not a prelude towards deletion of content. I do not know what revamp means and will not look it up because I feel that it is against good policies of wikipedia. There is a real POV going on because you are trying to equalize Mljet and Malta, which sources do not support (other than biased Fulda who belives that Aristotle and Callimachus and all other wrote but and nothing but of Malta).

Imbris (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ancient writers / Supporters of Callimachus

Now, Pliny the Elder is indeed an ancient writer but he wrote nothing about this dog, he just preserved Callimachus' words. It's not clear he has any opinion on them. The previous version mentioned him by name but didn't have anything of substance to say. Clement of Alexandria I have no objection to returning, but it needs to be written better than your sentence was, it was unintelligible. However, Bryant, Stephanus of Byzantium, Constantine VII, and Bochart are writers that came over 1000 years later. Many who have studied this issue have remarked on Callimachus' text linking the dog breed to Melita, which is why I used them as sources to the sentence that Callimachus meant that Melita. I have no objection to adding some more sources to that, but I think that frankly, it's not in heavy dispute so 4 is enough but if you want to add one or two more I have no problem with that. The situation here is that we have a case that one argument trumps the other: some writers say Malta, other writers say Adriatic Melita, but some specifically remark that Malta is wrong with specific criticism of that theory, while no one that I've seen has a good case that the Adriatic Melita theory is wrong. So we can just say some think X, but many have criticized X and prefer Y; it accurately reflects the sources. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop this criticism of authors who cited more than Callimachus, return those authors that Briggs mentioned in his article on the dog (within his book on dogs).

Stop your strange approach of equal merit for the island of Mljet and the island of Malta, more authors quoted the Adriatic Melita than the African Melita. Your Sicilian Melita is a construct which has no relevant sources in connection with the dog (some might wrote Sicilian Melita in some other fields of study, but on dogs - no).

Some authors referenced them only to Pliny the Elder who mentioned only three dogs and among them Canis Melitaeus in reference to Callimachus but with great meaning because he was a Roman writer and Callimachus was Greek writer which shows continuity. It is clear to everyone that it is not WP:SYN because authors have quoted Pliny the Elder.

Dictionaries and lexicons often link Pliny the Elder with Stephanus of Byzantium who also quoted on them. It is important because Pliny was Roman and Stephanus was Byzantian.

Constantine VII was the author who is relevant because speaks of Mliet as part of Slavic kingdom, he pronounces him self king of that kingdom, we can find sources which support Bryant when he mentions Illyrians and we can find sources which support Sclavonians, all in the context of the dog.

Return the deleted paragraphs so that I can begin the forced work of disproving your claims of SYN.

You have thought to do this all along. No. You promised to merge history of the IP-user with the history of the article in its state before the deletionist crusade. Also you spoke about segmenting the history. Now it seems you want a summarized version with even less content in the history section than before. You are trying to formulate the view of the end-user by constant overplaying of sources that go against Callimachus, writing when those wrote, their titles and honorifics, writing around those sources to make them significant, etc. Who are you to decide what writers will go into the history sections and what will not go into the history section. If you are here as a ordinary editor (which you claim all the time) then you should add content with reliable sources which write specifically on the dog.

Imbris (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, once again you have failed completely to be specific. All this is is an accusation against me. I think I see where you're coming from, I'm going to try to do a little rewriting, viewing things from your perspective. However I am firm about a couple of things: writings in favor of a view should be citations, not described explicitly in text unless they are particularly important in some justifiable way. Mangojuice^talk 20:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your revamp or how it is spelled was specific?! Denial of authors who cited Callimachus would be justified if we are speaking about authors nobody cited. But ancient authors are all to be cited, because all cite them. If some "modern" author from 1700s had a copy of Callimachus he would cite him, but if he had only Pliny he would cite Pliny. Now when a user looks at this article and founds no Pliny he would suspect on whether Pliny was important or not important. And he is important to reference all those who cited him and forgot to name the source Pliny used (Callimachus).

Also Callimachus from a Greek era, Pliny from the Roman era and Stephanus of Byzantium from the Byzantine era show how Callimachus was esteemed. Nothing in the article about that fact which Briggs in mid 1800s pronounce.

Constantine VII is important because he is the first major author to describe Slavic nations and the usage of Mliet, so when Italians used Meleda, Slavic nations used Mliet (somewhere written by the English writers Mleet).

Imbris (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Caius

Part of the interesting bit of the story here is how this dog came to be thought of as associated with Malta when the strongest evidence associates them with Mljet. One big part of that is the issue that to scholars later on, the fact that there were two Melitas, one much more prominent than the other. Caius' misquoting of Callimachus (yes, he misquotes him, but I believe the text is clear that he is misquoting Callimachus) is one interesting bit there. I haven't managed to find sources to explain this completely but Caius' works on dog breeds are celebrated in England and the breed later became an English breed; I feel it's likely that (1) writers in England on the Maltese very often trace their historical work back to Caius (or more specifically, the English translation of Caius that came soon afterwards), and (2) with support of the Strabo account (which is thought to refer to Malta, BTW; see Wentworth), that explains why the Malta association became so prominent in England (along, possibly, with further confusion caused by the obscurity to the English of the other Melita, among those who did consult others more widely). And this resulted directly in the English name for the breed becoming accepted worldwide. Not all of this theory is explicitly supported in sources, at least not that I have found so far. It's difficult to tell this story because most sources are more interested in presenting their preferred version of history than in the historiography. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Caius was a writer who quoted wrongly, thus placing him self as not so reliable. He was disproven early. You insist on using Caius as a strengthening tool to equal Mljet with Malta. We are speaking about geographical location thus Malta Island is preferable.

I am begining to feel that all this is a big test on how long can I endure the pressure of illegal ban on reverting. Also it feels like you have placed yourself in a perfect position, I can add and you can delete, the article is not placed under some special status, there is no nationalist campaign but determining how to present sources we have. You belive in a solution that Malta should have equal representation with other content, even if sources speak of delusion created by some English writers (point 7 of the RfC is referenced).

First to create the confusion was Buffon, a french cynologist who called the breed Bichon and considered it a subspecies of the Spaniel. He was the first to write that dogs are from Malta, without consideration of Melita, and without referencing his view with any older writer.

But Buffon also called what is modern Šarplaninac - the Albanian Dog, so if his view is to be portrayed expect a connection with the Albanian Dog, which is sadly not recognized by the FCI, nor is it largely present in modern sources. He mentioned the breed with a few sentences, without referencing and with considering the breed as a subspecies of the Spaniel.

Imbris (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You still don't get it do you? YOU are the one causing all the problems. Just leave the article alone, and stop pushing your POV. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that Pietru is blocked so checking his IP would be great. Also [6] the changes I made were perfectly OK which Mangojuice would be able to confirm if he inspect them. Fulda speaks nothing about Sicilian Melita, it is a construct, in those days it was called African Melita (Melite Africana, Bochart has also placed that Melita among African islands). The revert Crotchety Old Man made is rigid and not AGF, he (if he is a singular user) has sided with Pietru from the begining and Pietru's record of compromising is very low (which can be documented). You deleted even the wikilink to John Caius, funny :)

I am taging the article once more, because of those titles and so forth.

Imbris (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's laughable that you invoke "AGF". You've been blocked for your misdeeds with this article. You contribute nothing to the article. Any edit that doesn't add verifiable substance, I will revert, and without hesitation. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like a checkuser to be done to verify I am not Pietru, and after the result comes back negative, I'd like you to issue me an apology, as this could be construed as a personal attack. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No particular opinion on this revert, except to say that "African Melita" is not what Fulda says, he's a modern writer, and use of that term is needlessly confusing. Mangojuice^talk 12:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Naturally. But you deleted his Doctor title. This shows that you have doubts about whether other such honorific should be used (I have no problem with the Roman Governor title, btw). Caius was physician to Edward VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, should all of them be listed? Delete that POV. John Caius, for this article is just John Caius, nothing more. Fulda source did not use the phrase "Sicilian Melita", you did. Quoting that source you should have written Melita on Sicily, but you wrote Sicilian Melita which forced me to insist on African Melita, which is more often heard in sources writing about Malta. Malta is an African island by the account of Bryant and others as well, dictionaries, lexicons, encyclopaedias, etc. Delete the overplaying which is happening to those sentences and paragraphs you inserted while deleted sentences and paragraphs I inserted (without any reasonable explanation). in the first century A.D. gives positive charge to that sentences while denying Callimachus that same positive charge. Warn the Old Man to stop edit-waring. -- Imbris (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Eventually it's going to dawn on you. When literally everyone is on the opposite side as you are, you're the one that's in the wrong. Push your POV elsewhere. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, I removed "Doctor" because I thought the Wikilink should stay, and it seemed redundant when we then immediately mention he was a physician. The fact that you are calling this POV makes it clear that you don't really know what WP:NPOV is all about. It's just a way for you to denounce something you don't agree with, which is what my whole point has been about the tag you added. Mangojuice^talk 11:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Buffon", if you mean Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, lived two centuries later than Caius, so saying that he originated the confusion in some kind of authoritative way is odd. I would welcome any sources that could speak clearly about where the confusion started; frankly, the best we have is Bryant, who says the confusion stems from the seemingly conflicting remarks of Strabo and Callimachus. Mangojuice^talk 12:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Imbris' compromise

Referring to this edit, I disagree with many parts of this edit but some are okay; I think mentioning Pliny and Stephanus by name is all right. I don't know why we should mention Aldrovandus if he merely quotes from other writers. Blondus and Gessner themselves might be worth citing but then again as they seem to be the only ones who hold these alternate theories, I think it might violate WP:FRINGE to even mention it. I don't know why we wouldn't mention the date of Strabo's writings, I think that's important. I definitely think we should say "Sicilian Melita" rather than "Melita on Sicily" as the sentence is directly discussion whether Melita is on Sicily or not, and the latter phrasing takes a clear side on the issue. But I get the idea from previous discussions that the mentioning of Pliny and Stephanus by name is the most important thing to you. Mangojuice^talk 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

At what point do we stop giving a damn about the history? The article is about the dog, not the history of the dog. If there's some sort of dog or animal Wikiproject, I'd be interested to hear from them, or start comparing to other articles (especially if one has achieved FA or GA or something along those lines). Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Beagle is a former featured article. Thank god that breed's not from Malta. I will ask some of the Dog Wikiproject people for input. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of this breed is very interesting. I'll stop "giving a damn" when that section is written to featured article standards. Right now, it only covers origins and early writings, plus a smattering of more recent items. Mangojuice^talk 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Good luck with it then. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Mentioning of time-frame for Strabo and Martial, while denying the same curtoasy to Callimachus is what is wrong. Mentioning John Caius as the doctor of only a part of his patients is what is wrong also. Those who quoted Blondus and Gessner did not have your concerns, also if the dog was popular in France, it is prudent to quote that, the Finnish author placed even more importance to it because of the commercial links between England and France. Sicilian Melita is highly inappropriate sumarize, which is not supported by sources of that time, nor the primary source for that statement use the phrasing Sicilian Melita. Melita on Sicily is a way of compromise between inserting inappropriate phrasing (which is used without appropriate context, because there is no source that speaks about Sicilian Melita in the context of the dog). Mljet was first to bear the name Melita in sources - by - Scylax of Caryanda (6th century BC), by others it is first mentioned in the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax. While the other island is first described as Melita by Diodorus Siculus. It is about geography, thus where Mljet/Malta is mentioned Malta needs to be wikilinked to [[Malta Island|Malta]], otherwise this would be not fair. Where Malta is not mentioned in the context of Melita, and Mljet also, it would be compromisal to wikilink to [[Malta]].

Also we should mention Clement of Alexandria, who is mentioned by early as well as by modern authors, his comment should be placed in the context of when he gave it.

Imbris (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason not to mention the date of Callimachus; in fact I will add that right now, it should be in there. Blondus and Gessner: can we at least find more sources before including this? It's mentioned by Briggs as mentioned by Aldrovandus. Does anyone really give any credence to this theory? I would just like to see more sources. Sicilian Melita -- we could just say "this Melita" or rephrase to avoid naming it again if it's so objectionable. It looks like mountain out of molehill to me. I've already spoken about Malta Island, you know my opinion. Mentioning Clement of Alexandria -- sounds fine to me, shall I give it a go? I thought your text before was very confusing. Mangojuice^talk 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you are the only one who is allowed to have a go. Crotchety Old Man keeps reverting my edits with no apparent reason, and he doesn't want to discuss any changes that he makes. He belive that history is of no importance for a dog breed of speculated 8000 years of history. Your opinion on Malta Island might be relevant in all cases, but those I have described above. In the context of history section, the [[Malta Island|Malta]] should be used, especially where Greco-Roman geographers are concerned. You have not commented on why should John Caius'es proffesion be mentioned. Especially why should one of his famous patient be mentioned, he treated other nobles too, but they are not all mentioned. If his proffesion is a must, his patinet are most certainly not. Will the Pliny the Elder and Stephanus of Byzantium be mentioned? Lots of sources use the phrase Pliny the Elder and Stephanus of Byzantium on the authority of Callimachus pronounce in favour of the Adriatic Melita.

There is nothing WP:FRINGE about mentioning Blondus and Gessner who wrote their opinion, and by Briggs they wrote that opinion on their own, Bochart and Aldrovandus have nothing to with their opinion. Including those opinions put the end-user into perspective that great many "nations" of the Mediterranean were thought to be of some connection with the dog. Naturally with years of when they lived.

Imbris (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't Briggs, it was Rawdon Briggs Lee, as it turns out. Anyway, Lee does mention them but he seems to be the only one to refer to their theory of origin. He seems quite enamoured of Aldrovandus, especially his observation of there being two separate sub-breeds. But even Lee immediately after mentioning Blondus and Gessner dismisses their opinions. Google books doesn't back up the idea that this is anything other than a discredited theory, so I believe my request for more sources on the matter is not unreasonable.

Malta Island: For about the eighth time, no, I totally disagree and am not going to change my mind. Do you want to make an effort to bring in more input? Because otherwise I think we are done with this.

Pliny and Stephanus: go ahead and put it back. You are allowed to edit, but your last edit kinda looked like you were trying to sneak something in, unexplained, during a revert, which is why C.O.M. demanded discussion.

Caius -- he was Queen Elizabeth's personal physician, she was not just one of many patients. But regardless, he is introduced this way in several sources that mention him, and it makes it clear he's English, because his name sounds like it's in Latin. Plus, physicians in those days are often the ones who study zoology; it helps explain why people care what he wrote. Mangojuice^talk 05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aldrovandus mentioned two sub-types (not breeds). It should be mentioned together with Blondus and Gessner, with the note that their opinion has not been confirmed, they shed light to the fact that different places were named as possible locations of origin.

Malta Island was the geographical location named Melita by Diodorus Siculus (the first to call the island by that name). At that point there was no Maltese archipelago as a geographical name for the Malta Island, Gozo Island and Comino Island. The "group" was listed as African islands for a long time (in history) together with Pelagie Islands (of today's Italy). This way by considering geography and history you should reconsider using [[Malta Island|Malta]] in the history section of this article. I am willing to compromise the use of [[Malta]] elsewhere.

You haven't said anything about listing Mljet before Malta when Melita is concerned in the sentence about The confusion between these two Melitas.

If praises about John Caius being the physician of royalty is so important, why do not mention that Callimachus was undoubtedly an authority on dogs in his day, as Lee put it. We can write that Caius was an English physician without mentioning his patients.

Crotchety Old Man should have discussed before his revert, Wikipedia:TW is not to be used this way, Crotchety Old Man should be warned because of his actions and making up rules for me.

Imbris (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "see talk page." After "seeing talk page" I saw that the consensus was to keep the Queen mention in there. Not sure why you're so confused by this concept. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Imbris -- please put down the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Malta it is, not Malta Island, unless you go seeking outside input, this is just a waste of time. As for the order: any way you slice it, this is not a POV issue -- if we are going to list both one will always be first and the other second, it doesn't mean the text is slanted. I prefer it the way it is, it's how I would say it were I speaking. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@Crotchety Old Man: And there is a need to consensus over mentioning of patients of Dr. John Caius. This has nothing to do with the article. He was physician to Edward VI of England, Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England. Should all of them be listed?!

@Mangojuice: When we are speaking about Greco-Roman geographers in the context of their writtings, we should acknowledge their geographical and historical data - in the context - the context being that, they did not speak of the Republic of Malta, but of the one island only. God forbid that the end-user should click one more time to go to [[Malta]]. I do not know why Mangojuice keeps opposing this, while in the same time denies the privilege of mentioning Mljet in its context of part of the Republic of Croatia. With a small (in today's Croatia). Also in the History section of the article Mljet is mentioned before Malta, when reading the entire passage. I hope that Mangojuice will answer why one of his patients must be mentioned.

Imbris (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Malta stays listed first. Given that you can't come up with any rational reason to make the switch, alphabetical order rules here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given the rationale for my edit, Mangojuice said that he is neither for, nor against. You are the only one who belive that Malta should be placed before Mljet, in these particular circumstances where Malta most certainly has nothing to do with the dog, except some specimens that were allegedly exported from Malta. You said that you do not care about the history section, so why medley with it. No matter how much rationale I produce you are always against. I have no idea why anyone should listen you, dear Crotchety Old Man, when you do not discuss, but rather just keep on accusating other editors as nationalists. The patient list of Dr. John Caius must go away. -- Imbris (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

When it comes down to it, Imbris, I agree, you are a nationalist POV pusher. Maybe it's not your intention; I can assume good faith that far. But when virtually every issue you argue over, you argue to change the article in a way that distances the breed from Malta. In this particular case, I think it's insane to even be discussing which we list first in a sentence that treats the two places equally. I support the text COM supports more than yours, as I said, I wrote it, I prefer it that way, it sounds more natural to me. I didn't and still don't really care but if this is the kind of issue you want to make a big deal of, then I will oppose you. Mangojuice^talk 04:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice, label away! You have said that it is not about geography. Greco-Roman geographers prove you wrong, on that part. Why do you insist Dr. John Caius patient be listed, he was physician to Edward VI of England, Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England. Should all of them be listed?! I know your position on [[Malta Island]] vs. [[Malta]] but ...

I have sought a compromise by using [[Malta Island|Malta]] only in those places where Melita is discussed. That is more than reasonable since the geographical, historical and general reasons (like the fact that the dog has not anything to do with Malta, a fact supported by majority of authors, even English ones).

I suggest you stop labeling editors. We have Crotchety Old Man, the ghost user, without any contribution to the article, created itself in February 2009, and a few days latter started his involvement with this article.

Also I haven't pursued gathering support, seems others pursued just that.

Imbris (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the absolutely final word of true discussion from me on Malta Island. This is a ridiculous idea with no merit, so I will not support any compromise on it. Your ideas of what should link to Malta Island are wrong, I've told you this for months but you don't seem to care. Look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Malta Island for the kinds of links to Malta Island that are actually appropriate. In most cases it is due to the inclusion of a template that separates links between Malta and Gozo, such as Template:Malta-LocalCouncils. Other than that, it is only linked to in the context of lists of islands, such as Mediterranean Sea or List of islands by population, or to specifically distinguish it from Gozo and Comino.

As for Caius, the idea of listing every "patient" of Caius is a straw man, obviously that's ridiculous, I'm sure you don't want that either. However, just because one is mentioned does not, in fact, mean that we need to mention them all, and I have already explained that this is how Caius is introduced in the sources, and it gives a brief explanation of who this person is (a fair bit more obscure than Aristotle, Pliny, or Callimachus), and gracefully indicates that he is English, which is helpful. I've already said this.

As for labels, WP:SPADE. Mangojuice^talk 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• You have not listed any relevant reason for keeping [[Malta]] if we are to reliably represent the sources, they spoke about the Malta Island and not the Republic of Malta (Malta). Those writers were Greco-Roman geographers, so your argument that it is not about geography, when mentioning geographical data is also void. If this is so important for you I will drop the issue, but the way you demand the issue to be dropped is not constructive, you keep going on about final word, as if you are the judge and jury and the prosecutor. The entire issue of you insisting that a POV wikilink should be used is still very strange.
• As for Caius, he was an English physician, this should be mentioned, his famous patients (Edward VI of England, Mary I of England and Elizabeth I of England) should be omitted.
• Mljet was first to be mentioned as Melita in history, it should be listed first, also in the history section we mentioned Mljet first (because of Callimachus), it is common practice that this should continue in the same section.

Imbris (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"puppy cut" image

I notice there's been a flip-flop lately between whether to use File:Maltese.jpg or File:Mighty Maltese.jpg. Thought I'd state my opinion; I prefer the former, with the wooden floor background. The dog isn't as nicely posed but the lighting is better and the background is less distracting. Mangojuice^talk 05:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Maltese is a horrible picture. Furthermore, File:Yu_Wawa.JPG adds nothing of substance to the article, and should be removed. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that File:Yu_Wawa.JPG is adorable. 130.207.229.30 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

At first I wasn't sure whether Imbris' inclusion of this article in Category:Dog breeds originating in Croatia was appropriate. I think we can all agree that whether that is true or not is in dispute, but certainly some think this is true. My gut reaction was against it but only now have I looked at the Categorization policy to see what it says. Here's the relevant part, from WP:CAT:

Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.

And also,

Categories give no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration; only the name of the article is given. That is, listings cannot be annotated (with descriptions nor comments), nor referenced.

I think this indicates that we should not have this breed in the category, because we can't properly explain the context. (This would apply to the Italy category too.) If we must categorize the breed by country of origin, I think Category:Dog breeds originating in Europe is the best we can do. Mangojuice^talk 20:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the "Europe" cat was sufficient. Yet another subtle nationalistic POV edit from Imbris. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would advise Crotchety Old Man to stop name-calling, but this would be too hard to expect from the user who is determined to defamate at any cost, anywhere.

As for the deletion of the two categories, this has been done in a mannor that is not AGF, Mediterranean is a broader term than just "Europe" Eurasia would be a better term. Also the article has in its content both references to support those two categories. There are no more Austro-Hungarian Empire and Yugoslavia thus those categories do not exist, but there are Italy and Croatia so this categories should be returned, there is nothing controversial in usage of those two categories, no less than Mediterranean or Europe or even Eurasia. This way the category Category:Dog breeds originating in Europe should also be deleted.

Imbris (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the Europe category, I see your point, since the references mainly support "Meditteranean region" which is not all in Europe. I think, if anything, the best category would be something like Category:Dog breeds with unknown or disputed origins. But in the end that's not very encyclopedic; it's probably better to just not categorize by place of origin if we can't do so unambiguously. (The references are insufficient: the breed should not be categorized as originating in either place if the truth of that claim is in dispute.) Mangojuice^talk 20:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why the category you are proposing would be not encyclopedic. I support it even if there are sources that only write of Europe. For the claim that references are insufficient, I disagree, this article has more sources (and books.google even more) than for any dog breed article currently on wiki.

If Category:Dog breeds originating in Croatia, Category:Dog breeds originating in Italy and Category:Dog breeds originating in Malta would be listed than all references and sources would be represented, why would this be controversial.

Imbris (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You tried subtly adding the Croatia cat in, hoping no one would notice. You got called out, and now you're back-tracking. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not [[Category:Dog breeds thought by some to have originated in Croatia]]. Categorizing the breed this way is equivalent to saying (on the Category page) that the breed did originate in Croatia. Including multiple countries doesn't help balance - it just compounds the mistake. Sure, it may seem like balance from the point of view of this article but the main concern is from the point of view of the category: there, the inclusion of this article is not qualified or contextualized by a note that it is also categorized as having originated elsewhere.

As for the "disputed origins" category, go ahead and make it if you want. I don't know if it will really be of interest to readers... but on a closer look there is some precedent; see Category:Cause of death disputed. Mangojuice^talk 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just glad that Imbris' nationalism has finally become obvious to all concerned. He's been transparent, and his work on the article reflects equal measures of corruption and propaganda. Good riddance. 193.188.33.23 (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop attacking editors and start discussing. If neccessary, use WP:DR. This kind of behaviour is normally not tolerated. The FCI stated that Malta has nothing to do with the breed. True, ancient Sicilian town of Melita doesn't exist anymore, thus ancient. But when you type-in Sicily and Melita you will find a lot of hits, and Google Maps concentrate them in one particular part of the island.

Mljet was called Melita (Melite) centuries before Malta. The previous editors used just the info about the word malat, but we have ancient Greek and Latin word Melita (Melitae) that is shared beteen all three locations. This should complement the info about malat, and we should not be forced to prove Greek connections with Semitic languages, because they are all Indo-European.

Imbris (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

We should really consider including the facts about the noun Melita (Melite, Melitaie, Melitae) as the word used in ancient Greek language and Latin language (Roman literature) in the meaning: "Honey". This would reduce concerns of those who belive that the ancient Greek word was not used to describe Mljet, because it was used, since the island was the Greek colony in Antiquity.

Also the entire Martial/Publius story should not be placed right after Callimachus, because it is of little importance and should remain below the John Caius paragraph. I think that the Martial/Publius story is well written, and even better sourced. It should not be changed.

Imbris (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re. The above nonsense, Malta was known as Malat by the Phoenicians long before Mljet was of any considerable concern; this follows for the Greek and Roman inhabitants who followed. Historical revisionism is a terrible crime against all intellectual respectability, and I would suggest certain parties involved in this article take that to heart if they pursue scholarly careers outside Wikitinkering. Malta as an inhabited island, evidenced by the oldest structures in Europe, was continuously known by variations on this same name for thousands of years - this has never been disputed by any scholar worth his salt. I see no reason for such confusion now. Truth will out. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man should stop his edit-waring on this article

Sick and tired of Crotchety Old Man reverting me. He does it always completely, never partially. The user Levalley did not provide sources to show merit on his information to the dog. He expressed his POV and now by Crotchety Old Man I am forced to start discussion with a user that joined three months ago, who has forced his linguistic/etymological POV into the article on the breed — while in the same time Melita (Greek and Latin for Mljet is not explained. I would sincerely wish that Mangojuice reacted when Levalley forced his non sourced "content" into the sentences that are properly sourced, to mask his POV as sourced and to alienate the reader from the official position of the F.C.I. And Levalley deleted some content without talking + without sources, and there is ample evidence which show that this is by far one of the oldest existing breeds of dog.

Imbris (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss, then revert. I'll stop when you finally learn. However, at the rate you're going, I doubt that'll be anytime soon. With every single edit you make to Wikipedia, all you do is push your Croatian POV bullcrap. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we all pursue ANI reports over Imbris if this behaviour gets any worse. There are plenty of other editors across Wikipedia willing to contribute, and Imbris has had ANI reports filed concerning his behaviour before. We shouldn't be subjected to this sort of *expletive*. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sadly enough, there are very few editor interested in contributing to this article, but luckily there are a number of administrators involved with the article and there is Mangojuice and Crotchety Old Man who contribute on a daily basis to it. User:Tanthalas39 is placed User:Pietru under disciplinary ruling not to make controversial changes, + not to edit without discussing. -- Imbris (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maltese life span

Is the 9-11 year life span in the article accurate...? I did a quick search for Maltese life span on yahoo and could not find a single source that listed the normal life span under 12 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.122.76 (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Most information I have come across is the breed usually lives to 14 years. There are a lot of inconsistentcies in this article and it doesn't flow well. IMO Maltmomma

http://animal.discovery.com/breedselector/dogprofile.do?id=2220

This source says 12-14 years is typical. We should probably think about updating the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.122.76 (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Notpietru which were not discussed, User:Imbris' nationalistic editing and User:Mangojuice saves the day (or something)

The following discussion 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.

---

User:Notpietru, who has been identified as Pietru il-Boqli (the user page is redirected to Notpietru) made this addition to the article knowing that it is controversial, unsupstantiated and succesfully opposed on this very talk page. The edit should be regarded as edit-waring because the user knows he is under limitation not to make controversial edits without previously thoroughly discussing the issue on Talk:Maltese (dog). I suggest that he should be warned not to continue with this practice, for the time being, because I still have faith that he would come around to being a polite contributor to this great project. -- Imbris (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

More nonsense. Imbris, you have been exposed by too many editors to count, across a variety of articles. Please, reconsider your position. Interested parties may refer to ANI disputes concerning Imbris, and conflicts that individual has (pending) with various editors. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, would other admins care to participate? Certain involved parties may (or may not) have a vested interest (inexplicable as it may seem) in supporting current edits at the expense of the article's integrity. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit has been restored. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

@Mangojuice: (1) Admins that participate in editing usually do not excercize administrative powers on the article where they edit. (2) Crotchety Old Man usually reverted every edit that is not previously discussed. (3) I suggest Mangojuice to thinkover his positive attitude towards Crotchety Old Man. (4) Sources that speak out of context of the Martial' literary work should not be listed in this article; because (4a) we can find all kind of sources that pronounce in favour of diff theories and we did not include them as opposed (4b) double standards, that provide information included in some cases while not in other simmilar cases (4c) If WP:UNDUE applies in the inclusion of Publius the Roman Governor or Malta, then we should include other sources which mention the dog and facilitate a range of opinions: Like Blondus (Spain), Gesner (Lyons in France), Aldrovandus, and much much other. -- Imbris (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

When everyone else looks blurry, it's probably your glasses. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, first of all, I haven't used my admin powers here, I'm just an editor. Second, the only difference between now and before is whether we mention the connection to Malta. Fulda may not say "Governor of Malta" but this just goes to show that Fulda is confused: if he believes Publius was a Governor, the only literature supporting that is older works on the dog breed that all identify Publius as the Governor of Malta, possibly Saint Publius. But looking at the bigger picture, the point is, many reliable sources make the claim and it's not right to neglect that. We are moderating it already by noting that Publius is not identified, and moreover by saying that first. Mangojuice^talk 04:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What CrotchetyOldMan said. The fact there is no link the the article on St Publius is something that needs to be addressed too. It's already clear this is one possible identity and the governor may not be this/these man/men. Rallying against this is further proof of agenda driven editing IMO, and testimony to an attitude that has plagued this article for a while - and, if User:DIREKTOR's comments are taken into account, has spread to other articles too. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Before we get ahead of ourselves, can you give a source that says this is Saint Publius? Mangojuice^talk 13:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an article by Mary Innes that (I think) makes the association (along with a discussion about Catullus' sparrow) - I'll dig around for a source on google books. Obviously the addition would be sourced (although the inference is plain). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest edit of User:Notpietru (Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση) shows that he is not going to stop his POV-pushing. He doesn't discuss and inserts pieces of text inbetween sourced paragraphs. His comments are rude and unacceptable, namely the comment in his latest edit "srsly though, "Mljet"? I suppose the Knights Hospitaller are the Knights of Mljet too."

I have serious doubts on the style of his editing, his inability to work with other users, his not discussing (which was proscribed by Tan). Also the fact that if I were to change meaning in any sentence, it would be met with the immediate revert by Crotchety Old Man (he is a contributor, has no administrative jurisdiction, and has not contributed any value to the article other than reverting me, together with Pietru (Notpietru), and with the same type of accusations like Pietru (Notpietru) like nationalist, etc.

Crotchety Old Man is not objective.

Imbris (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep playing the innocent victim, while slinging insults. It's what you do best. Again, when EVERYONE disagrees with you, you are most likely the problem. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not true that everyone disagrees with me. But what is the Truth ^TM ? It is most certainly not your "truth". If you feel you are insulted, then I am sorry, but still, from what I have seen you are not objective. Furthermore I still have no idea what is your contribution to this article other than to protect the vision of Pietru. -- Imbris (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You see only what you want to see. When people disagree with you and point out your error (which is often, and across many articles), you immediately claim some sort of Wikipedia-wide conspiracy. You're the POV pusher here. It's really that simple. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not true. (1) You have not pointed any errors, not produced any reliable source for this article, got involved just to revert (and you do that without discussing) (2) Why not reverting Pietru? (3) If you would revert Pietru now, that will not support your lack of unbiased approach. Nothing is simple in this World, and your involvment in this article is very strange. If you are not supporting Pietru all the time, you keep rushing to support Mango. I know what that is. -- Imbris (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Imbris here. There was nothing wrong with Pietru's actual edit (adding "conclusively", doesn't change the meaning and is probably more accurate), but Pietru's edit summary was irrelevant to the edit and served NO purpose but to provoke a negative reaction. I'm sick of this behavior, I'm going to request sanctions on Pietru. This is trolling and we should not stand for it. Mangojuice^talk 04:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I request other more accomplished admins be involved. Mango is not suitable for the scope of these sorts of disputes, having displayed nothing but bias and negativity towards me. If this is related to the fact I questioned his academic credibility, apologies. I'm sure it's perfectly possible to dabble in philosophy without speaking certain languages. However, I shall not be the target of bullying. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither shall we. I'll stop commenting on you if you show that your interest here is the article and not provoking Imbris, because so far that's pretty much the extent of your activity here. As for getting other editors involved, I welcome it, but I don't think they're needed if all we're doing is commenting on each others' behavior. WP:DR is always welcome, but I think first we ought to have an actual dispute about the article rather than just bickering. I had wanted to work on getting this article to WP:GA status, but lost my energy for it. (BTW, see Doctorate: a PhD doesn't mean it's a degree in philosophy.) Mangojuice^talk 15:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering the edits that I've made, I think it's strange that things have been allowed to degenerate; nothing but constructive edits from this end. Anyway - there really is no point in bickering, I am not particularly interested in you as an individual (and hope the feeling is mutual) outside the scope of interaction on this project. Let bygones be gone! (not sure I was specific about the nature of your studies in philosophy, but it's nice of you to share). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "nothing but constructive edits from this end" you are being dismissive of the issue. Let's take your latest edit for instance: [7]. No one is talking about the Knights Hospitaller here and there is loads of reliable evidence about the Malta vs. Melita/Mljet issue of origin, not to mention that your edit isn't even especially related to our coverage of that issue, only to how we describe what the FCI said. I'm not trying to extract an apology or anything here, I just want you to understand that you have been behaving in a way that is understandably upsetting. I'm willing to move forward too, I'm sure we all are, but this kind of thing can't continue. Mangojuice^talk 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "we", is it to be understood as editorial, royal or inclusive of the entirety of Wikipedia? Yourself and Imbris? I made a silly comment, over an issue that's been agonised over in perverse and illogical ways. The edit itself is sound and beyond reproach, but you take exception to the summary. Fair enough. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here I meant we, the editors of this article. And you're still doing it if you consider this way of looking at your comments "perverse" or "illogical." Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a silly comment over an issue that's been agonised over in perverse and illogical ways. It's not your opinion of the comment that I refer to as perverse and illogical; it's the deflection of our collective attention away from the only thing that really matters - making this article decent. Which, in light of my edits, is an apparent concern of mine. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop with your glorification attempt aimed at yourself as the NPOV editor. Pietru maintained the article as pure Malta POV before I came along. Malta was listed as the country of origin, etc.

Furthermore Pietru's POV that Publius was a Roman governor of Malta, which is referenced by a disputable source doesn't mean that it was Saint Publius, so all your contribution were not allowed into the article.

The article is not in good shape these days and mentioning Malta first is a serious flaw. I am putting the POV and disputed tag on.

Imbris (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man removed File:Yu Wawa.JPG [8] by undoing revision No. 317326538 by 130.207.229.30 with the following comment, and I quote: ugly dog

The same user, without discussing [9] removed my latest contribution with the following comment, and I quote: stop your childish grandstanding

I do not know why would anyone grant him unlimited rights of making such decisions, and I repeat without discussing. Recently I visited his user page to see that the user has ties with Croatia, and I suspect that he/she/it engaged in Wikipedia:Stalking over my editing. The same type of accusations came from the user that I engaged discussing on other (history) topics. I would suggest him to stop this behaviour.

Imbris (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's not my picture on my userpage. Stick to being a martyr; that's all you're good for here. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris, please focus on the contribution. I see no reason for your dispute tag when the "conclusively" you removed does not seem to be a particular issue of contention. If that's what the tag was over, as your edit summary implied, the tag isn't necessary. Besides, even if the word remained in the article, calling the factual accuracy disputed is overreaching. Mangojuice^talk 00:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that word is a symbol of contention. The source should not be demoted or portrayed in less, when it specificaly says, that it is not of Malta. If that word should remain then the entire paragraph should be re-phrased to show that all three places are listed, in the order the source list them, and one beside the other. Malta is placed above all else, and then, as if that is not enough, the sentence which clearly states it is not of Malta is downplayed. Also, dear Crotchety Old Man or shall I say dear Mr. DIRxxxxx should stop his violent campaign against me. Crotchety Old Man is an account created not long ago, when the dispute started. It is used to have a clean log (block-log) and therefore greater leeway. -- Imbris (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid accusations of sock-puppetry. Those can come back to haunt you. I'd also like an apology for said accusation. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, you want an appology but in the same time hand out offences of nationalism. Yes I appologize because I said that COM is someone else (even if I did not specify who). -- Imbris (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris is a disruptive Croatian radical nationalist account that is engaged in edit-wars and squabbles all over Wikipedia, pushing Croatian nationalist POV (I'm a Croat, btw, that's how I know its radical :). Nobody discussed with this account more than I, and imho discussion with User:Imbris is completely and utterly pointless. I cannot emphasize how immobile he is on any given issue. Sources and five-moth discussions, mediation and admin warnings do not stop him or change his position. He has managed to damage a significant number of articles. He has been reported on more than ten occasions on WP:AN/I by various users (including myself). Cheers --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any contribution to make or are you only WP:STALKing right now? And Imbris - Crotchety Old Man is not a sockpuppet, I have warned you before about making unfounded inflammatory accusations like that. Sockpuppetry complaints can be filed over here and you are expected to present evidence. Mangojuice^talk 04:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• hr:Wikipedija:Kafić#en:Talk:Maltese_.28dog.29 Ako bi se tom I.R.Bab. moglo dokazati da je čaraparko, bilo bi to dobra stvar. - "If this I.R.Bab [i.e. DIREKTOR] could be proved to have a sockpuppet, that would be a good thing". Imbris openly invites his fellow Croatian nationalists on the Croatian Wikipedia central discussion board to support his defamatory cause of DIREKTOR. Just a notice in the anticipation of potential new discussants herein. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My motive here is friendly advice to the poor souls :) who filled this entire talkpage: do not feed the trolls (have a look at all this wasted energy). STALKing? Well if this is STALKing I sincerely apologize to old Imbris, but considering he followed me around to about a dozen articles, methinks I can perhaps be forgiven?

P.S. I know he's not a sock, that's not what I'm saying. And don't worry, Imbris, I'm not nearly as stupid as to create sockpuppets. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pietru, Imbris, DIREKTOR, Ivan Stambuk, and COM: if you have actual complaints about the behavior of other users, please go to WP:ANI. This page is to discuss article editing. Mangojuice^talk 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mango, as an admin, it's surely your duty to deal with these matters, rather than treat editors (such as myself) with disdain, backtrack, and later issue vague decrees that we should be cleaning up this unfortunate situation (but of course, every editor who disputes Imbris' edits is at fault, right.) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, sry for the unrelated discourse. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, and I mean this with as much respect as I can honestly muster, the fact that Imbris is being allowed to make decisions regarding delicate phrasing in the English language which affects the sense of the article text is surprising. A brief look at syntactical/lexical errors that user makes (within their edits and across talk pages) should give one paws (it's a dog article...) for thought. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a very valid point. In my (pained) interactions with Imbris, he hasn't shown that he really grasps the intricacies of the English language. Given that the edit wars are based upon placement of a few select words, this definitely counts against him. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) I have not edited the article lately. (2) Pietru edited, without sources, and done everything he can to return the article to the times when he WP:OWN-ed the article. (3) I have contributed a lot of text to this article (all sourced) and with painful discussions for every sentence. Then Mangojuice edited to the current phrasing, not I. (4) I have agreed much of the phrasing, but Pietru did not, and this fact is the source of current disputes.

The dispute on the origins and the name exist, this has been noted by many sources (available in the archives of the talk and the article's archives)

For all this time Crotchety Old Man supported the manner and the phrasing of Mangojuice, and now that same User:Crotchety Old Man preach a completely different story.

I will repeat, the delicate phrasing has been done by Mangojuice and if Crotchety Old Man claims any neutrality, then that user should revert Notpietru, for (a) not discussing, (b) editing without sources, (c) flamatory comments in the discussion and in the edit summaries, (d) changing the text in a way that is not supported by the numerous sources currently in place in the article.

Imbris (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits have all been supported. My criticisms stand, and are just. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No your editing was not supported, you have damaged the article by writing what was not written in the sources. Crotchety Old Man should realize that what was written before Notpietru's last edit-warring (and evasion of the principles set by Tan) is the editing of Mangojuice (which I merely supported). Crotchety Old Man has to this momment supported the editing of Mangojuice also.

Notpietru (Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση) did his best to ambigue the reader and slant the sources in the favour of Malta POV. The second paragraph is with Notpietru's "help" a disaster.

Imbris (talk) 21:40, 13 October 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.

I've archived the above discussion as it has degenerated into finger-pointing and name-calling with no connection to any article edits. Mangojuice^talk 03:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A look at the above discussion entirely refutes Imbris' scurrilous allegations. My edits are in accordance with sources, promote precision and indeed explicate the text. Also, I would appreciate my (I feel, valid) criticism of Imbris' suitability to the project (re. the English language) to receive some acknowledgment. 92.251.61.20 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)