Talk:Maltese people

Min Jaf?

The Maltese genetics and history is to be considered as essentially of Sicilian origin as a core. Sicilian, yes, and no need to mention the diverse makeup of the Maltese to deny this. People should look into the history of Sicily and Malta, and notice one thing in particular, that whoever was in Malta was present in Sicily at the same times and actually those that ruled over Sicily ruled over Malta even though they are nowadays passed in our history books as if they ruled over Malta exclusively (ridiculous!). This is all thanks to British imperialism and nothing else which pushed forward an official policy termed "deitalianisation" of the Maltese, and here I can only observe that one cannot deitalianise what is not Italian (or rather Italic) in the first place. The British Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911 or so itself, put Malta in the Italic Cultural Area. Hadn't it been for British rule, Malta would have been part and parcel of the Kingdom of Italy and would have been Italianised as the rest of Italy was (people should know for example that when Italy was substantially united in the mid-19th centery more Maltese per capita knew Italian then in other areas of the Italic world, as most people spoke dialects and not Italian). The British led officially a policy of cultural manipulation for their own geopolitical and colonial control interests, this is why we have all this debate on this page and nothing else. A recent serious study (unlike the National Geographic hogwash) debunked quite effectively the notion of Punic heritage, and also North African links genetically speaking, it however asserted the Sicilian/Southern Italian genetic heritage of the Maltese, something that could be attested by a quick look of ethnic Maltese surnames. THIS RESEARCH WAS ALREADY REFERENCED HERE. Moreover, people should remember one thing about this (in)famous Punic Thesis (which had been pushed by local British partisans for the imperial interest and nothing more, and it gained worth because of that and that alone), is that Sicily had Punic settlers itself! Sicily had the Romans, the Byzantines, the Saracens, the Normans, the Angiovini, the Aragonese and when Malta passed on to the Knights it should be noted that finally sovereignty still vested in what became the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies whom the Maltese insurgents against the French had recognised as their own Kingdom as stated through correspondence with their legitimated King, the British Monarch was and remained a usurper by right, only bullyish force changed that). Returning to Punic heritage, it is very historically improbable that it lingered on in the modern Maltese, people knowing anything of Maltese history from Punic times to the Norman takeover would know that there were hardly any settlers in Malta when the Normans tookover and that most importantly the Saracens had performed some 3 great attacks against Byzantine Malta decimating the local population significantly each time and ending something like 1000 years of Roman rule (500, with the Rome-based empire, and another 500 under Byzantine rule). Does anyone think that during that Romano-Byzantine time no settlers from Sicily (mostly of Greek heritage themselves) and from Rome settled in Malta and the population remained incredibly exclusively Punic? The Punic Thesis was just a concoction during British Imperialist rule to counter the nationalist cultural thesis of italianità and to push forward the British policy of "deitalianisation", and why use this Punic heritage? Simply because it was the only thesis that witheld glory (the Pheonicians were great, and being Punic involves nothing to be ashamed of, but it is not us, it is pure British and anglophile imposition and nothing else, bar National Geographic hogwash research carried out without even dealing with the local authorities, and thus without right, in the field of genetics), was not Italic, and was also not Arabic (knowing the Maltese historically induced distaste for Arabs, and the way the Brits themselves and others viewed Arabs). The nationalists themselves had objected to this notion, even going as far as attacking this Punic Thesis and its irrational Arabic hatred, safely asserting that the Maltese language was essentially an Arabic dialect and not a Punic language as stated by the local anglophiles and linguistic amateurs for mere political subservient reasons. Stop calling us Phoenician, Punic and a "melting pot", every people including the English who treated us often in racist manners (Wage discrimination, off-limits areas, arrogance from many servicemen, all in Malta itself to boot) are not a "pure race", for no people ever could claim of being purely descended from one group unless a point of departure in determining that purity is established through time. I'm purely Maltese for hundreds of years according to my personal research for example, if I go further back who knows. And please, don't refer to us as "white", I detest that term as it is something not proper to our Maltese context, it belongs to the English-speaking world. I say this, even though I'm blonde myself, so I have nothing against "white" people to start with, I just think that it is a shallow and superficial label. That label is another stupid byproduct of the English language hegemony in Malta, a language of a people having a very different mindset to ourselves and a very different history, with related premises et cetera. If we have to resort to a language other than Maltese, it is only natural for respecting our own history, identity and tradition to use Italian, although this simple fact might not be liked by the local anglophiles or the generally intellectually lazy populace. I don't want to be "white", I am Maltese and proud, and knowledgable on the essentially Italic history and identity of my people. The Maltese always wanted political autonomy through history, that however never meant cultural and ethnical isolation from nearby Sicily and the Italic world, and that all started through the political manipulations of the British. It is time we Maltese liberate ourselves from the effects of that imperialist policy, that empire is long dead and gone now, time to bury its effects. I won't bother correcting what I wrote, the points are perfectly clear as is. For comments and rebuttals (be sure to do your research accordingly before venturing into rebuttals) you can contact me on ederico.figallo@gmail.com. I'm busy with my studies, I guarantee no replies, or at least immediate ones. I wrote here just because I came on this page after I was looking for something else and got pissed off witnessing apparent foreigners dishing out utter rubbish as if sacrosanct fact on my people. My people in general are no better unfortunately, but at least that is their business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.89.21 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A maltese who doesn't like being called white? WOW! That's new. I thought all European peoples called themselves white people. I mean You claim that maltese are in essence Sicilian. Last time I checked sicilian people saw themselves as white people. Are you sure you are Maltese? anyway, interesting post--- PIXIE, fan of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.13.127.66 (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

WOW!!! No European but those who settled in the New World, Africa and Asia consider themselves to be "white". "White" only has a meaning when Europeans are among non European peoples. We, WHITE EUROPEANS call themselves Europeans, and then Maltese, Brittish, English, Italian, Portuguese, French, Russian, Croatian, etc. We never saw ourselves as white because it did not serve us. "White" are those people in the New World of mixed European heritage and that as such have not a strong identity. He is white, indeed. But he is Maltese foremost (though I am not sure if the Maltese are indeed a white people like the Italians or the Spaniards). (Assuming that maltese are white like Spaniards and Italians) Once Maltese are all white, like other Europeans, he is claiming to be white when he claims his strong identity: Maltese.

That's the European mindset. White is just a stupid word to refer to the European peoples as a whole. Despite that, HAIL THE EUROPEAN PEOPLES! HAIL THE WHITE RACE! FUC* MULTICULTURALISM! STOP NON-EUROPEAN(WHITE) IMMIGRATION! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.3.125 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC) I am Maltese and this is very mean

I don't think it's new at all that Maltese people don't like being called "white." If you are Maltese, you will understand that. We are simply Maltese. It's not about color, its about culture, dignity, heritage. This is a terrific article. It's very difficult to explain to people that Maltese people don't consider themselves white.I live in the U.S.A. and it's all about skin color here. It's frustrating to be lumped in to a category that I've never been culturally a part of. - Mandy, Chicago.

British Colony?

The point stated here about the "British Colony" thing is incorrect from a legal and political perspective, and something that the Maltese always resisted. The Maltese, who died by their thousands fighting Napoleon's revolutionary French forces, never asked fro Malta to become a "British Colony" but their representatives asked from day one to be allowed to govern their own internal affairs under British MILITARY PROTECTION in exchange for the military use of the island. Never was any sort of British ingerence in internal affairs or power over them asked for by the Maltese, was asked, and the idea that the Maltese asked to be a British COLONY is pure historical and legal gibberish promoted by those ignorant of Maltese historical and servile anglophiles with little national dignity.

Throughout all the period of British abused governance, the Maltese always and consistently asked for greater civil and national rights, self-determination and respect for their Latin and Italian ethnic and cultural patrimony which the British sought to eradicate after the Italian nation was being juridically united in the mid-19th. century. This can be verified through the British-commissioned Keenan report for example, issued in the 1880s circa which asked for the elimination of the centuries-old established Italian language, and the gradual removal of Italian and Sicilian terms from the Maltese language to make it a pure classical Arabic dialect.

British Colonial history in Malta, or rather its overwhelmingly negative side has been sidelined for political correctness sake.

Muslim or Arabic influences are a gross exaggeration. One cannot cast aside the identity of the people. The Maltese, like it or not, have in general an aversion for such influences, and Maltese nationalists didn't trust the British precisely because the latter wanted to promote the Arabic/Muslim idea in Malta. Accounts of racist attitudes towards the Maltese from the British are documented. The Maltese prior to British cultural manipulation had an Italian culture and this is still attested by those studying deeply Maltese ethnography and history in general.

Unfortunately the greatest cultural misdeed of the British has been to dupe the Maltese, particular the most uneducated classes, that anything Italian is foreign. Up to this day, bar some exceptions, those stricken with anglophilia are mostly from the uneducated lower classes. The reason for this is not merely a question of education or of appreciation of one's own culture. It arises from sociological and materialistic aspects. The British in fact, sought to employ only those who favoured them and the cultural policy of Anglicisation and de-Italianisation. This was even enacted through regolamentary/legislative measures in relation to civil employment as an example.

Regarding Muslim influences, I would only like to remind that throughout history Malta has fought a siege in 1429 circa against a force of 18,000 Saracens led by Kaid Ridavan, and a greater one comprised of around 45,000 Turkish and Saracen allies forces in 1565. Malta has also been termed Cattolicissima by the Popes, plus in the 1911 (or so) Catholic Encyclopedia it is highlighted that Malta had the greatest number of Catholic priestly and religious vocation in the whole world.

Plus, on a more personal note, associating a Maltese to an Arab or a Muslim, like it or not, is greatly offensive to a Maltese. In fact, when one is ugly in Malta it is often said "you look like an Arab". I'm not expressing value judgements here, just stating a social fact.

Turning to an ethnic consideration, it is a fact that the greatest number of ethnic Maltese surname are of Siculo-Italian origings. The most common surname in Malta is in fact CAMILLERI. Other very common Maltese surnames of Italian origins are GRECH, SPITERI, ATTARD, DEBONO, BONELLO, VELLA, PORTELLI, et cetera. With other less common such as de Giorgio, de Gabriale, de Battista, de Marco, and many many others. Nowhere here I am saying that there are no historical Arabic and Islamic influences. But, saying Islamic influences is incorrect, since that is a religious influence which in Catholic Malta is inexistent. Arabic influence as an ethnic aspect, is definitely present, but it is minoritarian and has been given too much emphasis by manipulative British in their cultural policies, and not suprisingly by those who were under their sway, such as the Malta Labour Party (indicative is the fact that the party's official name is to this day in English) who was actually aided by the British and who even proposed integration with the UK. Of relevance is the fact that in the integration period, prominent nationalists were threatened with internment if they kept writing against integration or did not change their views. Dott. Giorgio Borg Olivier, the nationalist "father of Independent Malta" was even offered (an attempt to corrupt) a seat in the British parliament, a worthy residence in the UK and the best schooling for his kids payed by the UK government if he turned in favour of integration with the UK. He, God be praised, declined. This episode is according to Dott. Victor Ragonesi, a renowned Maltese nationalist, personal secretary to Dott. Giorgio Borg Olivier, and ever-present during the Independence negotiations.

And how convenient for the English is it to merely state that Malta became a British colony and then acquired independence. That is practically a history of 164 years kept silent. Why not mention the numerous promises never maintained, the ridiculous costitutional grants which were taken away at will by the British, the SETTE GIUGNO which till nowadays is still a national feast in Malta. For those that do not know what that is, it is a remembrance of when British troops shot dead a number of Maltese civilian protestors who were protesting against the numerous misdeeds of the British, including the raising of taxes which practically meant that the Maltese could barely by bread to eat! Why not mention the numerous political persecutions, the behind the scenes political manipulations which are documented et cetera.

I guess that is enough info for now.

This information is not true

Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Filfla. Pretty much everything said is complete nonsense with no sources for any of this rubbish. The British were asked here to help get rid of Napolean, then the British were asked to stay on & keep a military presence in Malta, do you think that the British simply came here & said "Right Malta is ours now"?!? Negotiations took place with the leaders of both countries & it was decided amicably for Malta to come under British rule, perhaps if you read some history books you would find this out for yourself. Yes there were periods from both sides which were not great but that is consigned to the history books, do we to this day continue to chastise every German for what Hitler did? And those Italians you seem very fond of bombed Malta during WW2 by the way.. It is a fact that Malta wanted to become part of the United Kingdom & a referendum was held in which the majority of Maltese voted for this, but it is only for the inept actions of the then PM who made the UK re think & they were the ones who decided not to allow Malta to become part of the UK. It was after this that Malta wanted independence, which the country got with no resistance from Britain & not only did the country remain with the Queen as head of state until 1974 when the country became a republic, but Malta has remained to this day with very close ties to the UK.. By all means have your petty predjudices (although it would be better not to voice them) but at least get your facts right when you are going to re-tell history in your own creative way. Mela. 78.133.67.196 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I agree that this entry should be moved to 'Malta'. Ravells 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

I removed some non-neutral language, but I'm still not sure how neutral this article is. Looking through the article history, there seems to have been an attempt to remove references to Muslim influences. I don't know enough about Malta to judge, but it needs investigation. Cordless Larry 15:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I do not understand why you are indicated that the article is non-neutral. Kindly cite Maltesedog 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey cmon. What about Maghrebis in the related people section? No need to deny it.--Burgas00 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC) hfgyegrbfhegrvfbghrvegfyergfyegrfugreyfguerytf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.182.189 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Related Ethnic groups

Okay, I'd like somebody to explain how exactly Maltese people are related to Arabs, apart from linguistically. Culturally? How? Genetically? How? One study that states that "more than half (50 %) of the Y chromosome lineages that are seen in today's Maltese population could have come in with the Phoenicians" proves absolutely nothing, I'm afraid. Marcus1234 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• The researchers are positive that over half of the Y-chromosomes of Maltese are of Levantine origin (i.e. not Arab), most likely Phoenicians considering it is known Phoenicians colonized and settled Malta for a very long period (and historically the only Levantine population to colonize the island). The areas outside of Canaan (Lebanon) with the most Phoenician input are areas where they are known to have most settled (i.e. Carthage (Tunisia) and Malta).

This study claims that English people have non-White blood. Other studies claim that British are pure Anglo-Saxon. Other studies claim that the British mostly originated from the Iberian peninsula. So my point is pretty evident: These DNA studies are far from accurate. I think we all agree that there are no accurate studies regarding the genetic composition of Maltese people at present (although we can assume from surnames; incidentally, Spanish [who you wrongly believe have nothing to do with Maltese people] surnames are quite common in Malta.

• That link is NOT a reliable source for anything and is total garbage compared to the soruce I used from National Geographic. NO studies claim that the people of Britain are "Iberian" in the modern context, only that they have descendants from Upper Paleolithic men who resided in an Iberian refuge (as wel las other regions) periodically during the last Ice Age. Look, I have never heard that Spanish surnames are as common in Malta as you claim and they have no record of settling Malta in significant numbers. A surname doesn't mean anything with regards to the composition of a population, especially when its only in a minority. The study I provided is a an accurate and reliable study and clearly shows a Maltese-Phoenician connectoin that supports historical information on Phoenician settlement. No other region outside of Lebanon (where most people acknolwedge they are descended from Phoenicians) has Phoenician Y-chromosome input as high as in Malta. Linguistically, Maltese is most similar to Tunisian Arabic and Tunisians also have significant ancestry from the Pheonicians. In terms of language, culture and ancestry, Maltese are definitely related to Lebanese and Tunisians. 69.157.107.88 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, culturally, please explain how Maltese people are related to Arabs, and provide a source if possible. Marcus1234 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• All you need to read is the history of Malta to answer that and what exactly the Arabs brought to Malta. They had a huge cultural and linguistic impact in Malta not seen in other regions like Sicily and Spain where the Arab occupation was even longer. In any case, even if you don't want to cite that Maltese are related to all Arabs, they are definitely related to Lebanese and Tunisians (both populations were only Arabized and have very little if any descent to Arabs) via common Phoenician ancestry. 69.157.107.88 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think we shouldn't add the "related ethnic groups" because there isn't enough evidence that shows to whom we are related - I think it's all a subjective matter anyway. The Greek people article also does not include a related ethnic groups section, probably because there is a debate surrounding the issue. Marcus1234 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Greeks is a wholly different case considering they have a language isolate and a very distinct culture that has been continuous since ancient times. Maltese speak a language and have had cultural influence from other groups outside Malta, including Arabs. In terms of ancestry, we know from history and from genetic studies that maltese descend significantly from Phoenicians, so in termso fancestry, culture and language, they are very related to Lebanese and Tunisians and we know that they are also clearly related to Italians in terms of language, culture and ancestry. 69.157.107.88 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You only provided one source; a dubious study performed by some amateur. It proves nothing. If this study was of any significance, it would have been mentioned in the news, newspapers etc, but it wasn't. And you still failed to explain how the Maltese are culturally Arabs - what about our culture is Arabic? Relgion? Politics? Music? Cuisine? Dress code? Entertainment? The truth is none of these are influenced by Arabs. None. I have been to Arabic countries and I must say I always felt wholly out of place there. Marcus1234 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• That was a ridiculous comment. The source is by no means "dubious" or "amateur" and by claiming such you obviously didn't read the article whatsoever. I find it hysterical you claimed that if it was of any significance, it would be mentioned in the "news" or "newspapers". First of all, the article itself is from National Geographic, so it obviously was in the news, secondly, newspapers are nowhere considered as a reliable source when compared to an academic journal. The study I cited does prove quite a bit and is carried out by a respected geneticist from a respected University (Spencer Wells and Pierre Zalloua from the American University in Beirut), so how could you claim it is "amateur" ? LOL. I have provided a reliable source and links to Maltese hIstory to support what most people obviously recognize, while you only provided some garbage POV link to a newspaper article with no references and that has nothingto do with Maltese people. Also, by being related to Arabs does not mean Maltese are necessarily Arabs and there are many Lebanese who seak Arabic, but also don't even consider themselves Arabs because of their distinct non-Arab ancestry, especially amongst Lebanese christians. Tunisians and other North Africans were largely Arabized in language and culture but are of non-Arab origins, and are of predominantly Berber origins and retain Berber culture, even among Arabized Berbers. Maltese speak a Semitic language and are of very significant Phoenician descent which clearly links them to Lebanese and also to Tunisians. Considering the Maltese language is a Semitic language very similar to Tunisian Arabic, obviously there would also be Arab cultural influences as well. They are related to all Arabs in terms of language, but are specifically very closely related to Lebanese and Tunisians due to common Pheoenician ancestry and also share many cultural aspects with Tunisians. 69.157.107.88 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would consider The National Geographic to be a reliable source of information. And what alias 69.157.107.88 is in some terms true, you can have Arabic ancestors but still have a very different cultures. I personally have Malay ancestors, but I feel out of place going to places where the Malay population is high. --Fishyghost 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The section is already there, but that study isn't enough to justify the inclusion of a "related ethnic groups" section, since, just like the Greek people article, there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. You can't just lump in the Maltese with the Arabs simply because there might be some genetic linkage according to one study, just like you can't lump in the Greeks with the Turks or Sicilians and Spaniards with Berbers. Therefore, it best not be included - it's not important or essential anyway. Marcus1234 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a link to appropriate resources and still keep the 'non-inclusion'. So that the viewer is given the information, but it isn't deemed important on a large scale as incorporating it onto the actual page. --Fishyghost 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The link and information is already there; the "Possible genetic links" section. Marcus1234 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha.. sorry, I wasn't looking. --Fishyghost 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Related groups

I can see why Greeks and Italians are included, but Spanish and Portuguese, just how ?

Maltese are related to Arabs in terms of culture, language and history and Maltese language is classified as Semitic.

They are particularly related to Lebanese and Tunisians, as I have show with some genetic evidence in the new "origins" section. Maltese descend primarily, or at least very significantly, from ancient Phoenician settlers, with other Neolithic, Italic, Greek and Arab elements. The Lebanese are almost entirely descended from the Phoenicians with minor Arab and Greek elements. The Tunisians are primarily Berber with some Phoenician (Carthaginian) and Arab admixture. Whether or not they are related to all Arab groups, in terms of language, culture and ancestry, Maltese are definitely related to Lebanese and Tunisians more than any other group, with the exeception of Italians. 69.157.107.88 11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason why they were classed in the same league as Spaniards and Portuguese is because they, like the Greeks and Italians, are Southern Europeans. Now I agree that, clearly, this is not an accurate criteria to go by when piecing together ethnic correlations throughout that particular region. Iberians, arguably, share more in common ethnically with the French, Irish, Welsh and even Scottish than they do with Italians, Greeks and Maltese. However, if you take into account the dominance of the Roman Empire and the cultural impact that had throughout Southern Europe, it's understandable why they tend to be lumped together. This is the second aspect of ethnicity. This is typically how ethnicities are identified on sites like these. -Pubic Man

Proposition

Since you obviously take offence at being related to Arabs for some bizarre reason, how about I just exclude the Arab and Semitic classifications and use these groups that Maltese are most related to:

• Lebanese
• Tunisians

• Italians

69.157.107.88 12:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

79.1.191.206 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Arabic

While it is true that Maltese have strong similarities between semitic language, historical some cultural influences from Arabs, Maltese people are not Arabic. These cultural connections come from the times of the 1565 Siege when Ottoman Turks and Saracens attacked the islands. Middle Eastern culture is in fact intertwined in Maltese history, however Maltese people don’t quite fall under the “Arabic/Middle Eastern” umbrella of identification, as they draw even more similarities in culture from Italy and Spain.

Due to Malta’s various country leaders, it’s people also tend to appear aesthetically from different countries completely as an ancestor may have procreated along a Spaniard or a Turkish person converted Maltese islander.

Re: THE LAST POSTER IS OBVIOUSLY FROM THE USA

Will you please specify who is "The Last Poster"? Tsum60 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I am European. And I wouldn't say that the Maltese are 100% Europeans... Not like Portugal/Spain/Italy/Greece. The Maltese have had huge non white sources to their population. But of course, you may consider North Africans and Semitic peoples to be white. I do not. However it is clear that, IF Malta is not part of Europe, it is the closer one can get to it.

However, your (unsourced) opinions are worthless within the context of Wikipedia. Move along. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

CIA World Fact Book

States that the Maltese are the "descendants of ancient Carthaginians and Phoenicians, with strong elements of Italian and other Mediterranean stock". So, they are indeed Semitic, as the Phoenicians are Semitic and the Carthaginians are just the Phoenician colonizers of North Africa. In any case, they are indeed related to Arabs, Jews, and quite possibly Berbers if the Carthaginians themselves mixed with the Berbers.

Please don't be ridiculous. The CIA factbook is merely basing that "fact" on the country's history. Marcus1234 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a reputable source, and all you have is a bigoted opinion.

Are you serious? The CIA factbook is indeed a reputable source when it comes certain contemporary statistics, but nothing else. With regards to ethnicity, the CIA factbook merely looks at the country's history, and that's it. There is virtually no evidence that suggests that Maltese people are Semitic peoples - in fact, it is considered offensive to describe a Maltese person as semitic. And by the way: The Phoenicians and Carthaginians settled in Malta 3000 years ago.

Having said that, I'll not revert your edit since Semitic generally can also (and generally does) refer to a lingiustic group, and since Maltese people speak a Semitic tongue, the description is still perfectly appropriate. Marcus1234 07:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy re Maltese origins

As evidenced by this talk page, there continues to be considerable controversy and uncertainty regarding the ethnic origins of the Maltese. The controversy itself is significant in its own right and, in my view, warrants a mention in the article. I've taken a stab at describing the sources of the controversy, which I would ask those of you who are interested in this issue to review and comment on. I have also added some information about a 2005 study by notable geneticists, which disputes the "Phoenician origins" theory. lamato^(talk) 05:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Genetics?

This part in the "genetics" is more to do with politics, and does not belong in that section.

By contrast, history books published during the Mintoff years following Independence began to question the earlier beliefs in a continuous, indigenous population of Christian Maltese and, in some cases, quietly promoted the theory of closer cultural and ethnic ties with North Africa. This new development was noted by Boissevain in 1991:

...the Labour government broke off relations with NATO and sought links with the Arab world. After 900 years of being linked to Europe, Malta began to look southward. Muslims, still remembered in folklore for savage pirate attacks, were redefined as blood brothers.

This latter development coincided with and reflected dramatic new (but short-lived) developments in Maltese foreign policy: Western media reported that Malta appeared to be turning its back on NATO, the United Kingdom, and Europe generally; Libya had loaned several million dollars to Malta to make up for the loss of rental income which followed the closure of British military bases in Malta; Malta and Libya had entered into a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty, in response to repeated overtures by Gaddafi for a closer, more formal union between the two countries; and, for a brief period, Arabic had become a compulsory subject in Maltese secondary schools.

I don't see what this has to do with who the Maltese are, all it says is Libya gave them some money. If people from Germany gave Malta some money, that wouldn't make the Matlese genetically German either. Same as if China gave Malta money, it wouldn't make the Maltese suddenly asian. Politics and genetics need to be seperated. - The Daddy 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there is more politics than genetics in the segment quoted above. However, sweeping generalities about the ethnic origins of the Maltese can be dangerous, unless the reader is given an opportunity to explore the political motivation and the background for the statements that are cited. The point that I was trying to make with this segment (albeit in a clumsy manner) was that the prevailing arguments about the origins of the Maltese people have changed over time, and frankly, these changes have often been motivated by political expediency. The theory that Maltese and Arabs were "blood brothers" came as a surprise to many Maltese who lived through tumultuous times in the 1970s and 1980s in Malta. Malta is, and always has been, a melting-pot of societies and ethnic groups, from north, south, east and west. Political, religious and social leaders throughout Malta's history have exploited the resulting uncertainties regarding ethnic origin for a variety of reasons. I think this particular fact, in and of itself, is worth exploring in this article, but would welcome other viewpoints. lamato^(talk) 23:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Related ethnic groups?

This category is superfluous, and misleading. I am a Maltese of primarily Italian heritage, and yet I take exception to the sweeping generalization that the Maltese, as a whole, are related to the Italians. That is a gross over-simplification. Some of the other related categories that have been proposed on this page in the past are just plain wrong. Culturally, linguistically, yes, I agree that Malta has a strong Italian heritage (one that has been, sadly and wrongly, much maligned and sidelined since WWII). And it is true that many Maltese are ethnically descended from Italians, but more so from Sicilians, plus there are significant influences from elsewhere around the Mediterranean littoral, such as Spain, Greece, France (as far north as Normandy), and North Africa. It is also true that many modern Maltese have a British naval officer for a grandparent or great-grandparent. Many more trace their origins to the Italian exiles who fled to Malta from Italy during the Risorgimento. Some of the Sicilians who settled in Malta over the centuries may have been of Arab origin, others were ethnically Sicilian, but culturally "Arabicized". Countless more were mainstream Sicilians in search of a better life. But what is the true significance of all of this ancient history today?

Yes, for hundreds of years there were Arabs, Turks and Jewish people living in Malta, sometimes as part of the mainstream culture, sometimes as invaders, and sometimes, sadly, in slavery. Many of their descendents are still among us, but so many generations later they are part of the "Maltese" family. There are also several Indian families that settled in Malta during the British era; again, their descendants are today Maltese, and would likely self-identify as such. The tired old debate over North African vs Phoenician vs European heritage is a moot point, because for countless generations there have been people of Arab, Phoenician, Spanish, French, Italian and yes, even ancient Maltese heritage in the former North African colonies, and there are people of all these same nationalities, and more, throughout the rest of Southern Europe. Maltese have settled and intermarried throughout the Mediterranean, including in Egypt, Gibraltar and Cyprus. Some have returned to Malta, several generations ago. Are these returned migrants and their descendants not Maltese? Are they Egyptian? Moreover, with the influx of many repatriated Maltese from the post-World War II diaspora around the western world, including Canada, the UK, the USA, and Australia, there are now ethnic influences from all over.

If we must have this list of "related ethnic groups," where should it start, and where should it end?

Let's talk about the possible origins of the modern Maltese race, and its many, many complex influences over the centuries, but let's not generalize. There is a great line in the film Mediterraneo, when the residents of a Greek island encounter the Italian invaders during WWII: "Una faccia, una razza". Let's face it, that is the bottom line about ethnicity in the Mediterranean. Moreover, why must Maltese people have this category, when other ethnic/national groups in Wikipedia do not, despite their equally turbulent history? It's as though being "Maltese" is not significant enough in and of itself.

This tired old debate is not worthy of a nation that was first identified as a "nation" by its Spanish monarch in the 15th century.lamato^(talk) 05:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mela ma tafx ghaliex hemm 'Related Ethnic Groups'? Halli hadd jahsibna ARAB! :P golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please speak in English. This is the English Wikipedia and speaking in foreign languages on article talk pages is considered impolite.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You might want to learn some Maltese: you seem to have an interest in Malta and her people, judging by the number of edits you've made to Malta related articles. My note was a satirical aside intended for native readers. There it is. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable people

Can anyone give me a definition of "Notable People" and provide examples?

Tsum60 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can check out the Notability guideline for more information. However, if you are referring to the people in the picture, I do believe these should be more than merely "notable" as per wikipedia guidelines. Although there isn't a guideline regarding such, one can merely look at other articles related to ethnic groups and take example from them. I believe the picture should only include important historical figures rather than flavour of the month contemporary entertainers. Marcus1234 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What?? Mifsud flavour of the month?? He's been in the starting eleven for CHAMPIONSHIP leaders Coventry City in England for a year now... how can that be a month?? Besides, footballers are in the wikipedia guidelines, and since Mifsud has achieved what few other Maltese footballers have done, he is a sensible choice. And what about Agatha Barbara, Ira Losco and Joseph Armani? Surely not flavours of the month. If there is partisan politics going on then it's another argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delboy10 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

With regards to "flavour of the month", I was referring to Ira Losco and Joseph Armani. These people might be popular (then again, depends on one's view of the word "popular") today, but 50 years from now, will anyone give a shit? Very doubtful. The people we should be adding here should be of historical importance, not ones who are soon to be forgotten. Marcus1234 06:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The original Maltese people are likely Sicanians..

I have recently being deeply researching the original tribes of the Sicilian peoples. The oldest tribe on Sicily is the Sicanians, who inhabited the island from atleast 8000 BC.[1] It is known that Malta (and Gozo in particular) has been inhabited since around 5000 BC after people coming over from Sicily; there were two other Sicilian tribes; the Sicels who didn't get to Sicily until 1200 BC, so they cannot be the original Maltese people...

The other tribe was the Elymians, who didn't establish cities on Sicily until 1100 BC (when Malta was already inhabited) and they were located in the north west of the island. When you consider the location of the ancient Sicanians on Sicily, the time in which Malta was first inhabited by people from there and the location of Malta (especially Saint Lawrence, Gozo where the island was first inhabited[2]), then it seems unlikely that it could be any other tribe.

The Sicanians themselves were throught to have originally come from the Iberian Peninsula[3], likely Catalonia[4], so this could shed more light on who the Maltese people are. - Soprani 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Maltese at school

history, maltese, religion and environmental studies are taught in maltese in the secondary school! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.199.190 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maltese is obviously taught in Maltese, yes, just like Italian is taught in Italian etc. The others are supposed to be taught in English. Perhaps it's a situation where all the students are proficient in Maltese, so the teacher decided to utilize Maltese. Marcus1234 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They are obsessed with money even my friend noticed that and my 12 year old brother did too (that is why they are obsessed with school just to get a job that they might not even like and become rich).

It depends on what schools you're talking about too: San Anton and St Edward's definitely don't teach most subjects in Maltese. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are Arabs surely?

If they speak an arab language why aren't they called Arabs or Semites? What's the point of this article in the first place they are certainly not indoeuropeans and related to Italians and Sicilians!!! These are indoeuropeans and speak an Italic language, Italian. This is ridiculous! I heard about nationalism in these sorts of articles but this is obscene. I mean they don't want to be called Arab but they still are. What is there to tell them apart from Arab Christians like the Lebanese or what have you? Surely that should be reflected somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.21.120 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Maltese are about as varied a racial/cultural group as there is. Your little rant is a sad reflection of many individual's general ignorance when it comes to Malta and her people. I've removed the linguistic snippet you included (in the wrong section) and suggest you: a) stop leaving shrill little comments, b) do some research, c) include linguistic information here: Maltese language and d) understand that racial and linguistic genetics are not synonymous. If an African child spoke Mandarin, they are not automatically Chinese.

golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Language section of infobox

Italian does not belong in the languages section of the infobox. Only first or official languages belong there. There's no Wikipedia policy relating to this, but have a look at other ethnic group articles and you'll see that this is the accepted standard - many Europeans speak English, for example, but we don't put English in the infobox of every European ethnic group.--Yolgnu (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not true. In the parameters section from the Template:Infobox Ethnic group, under Languages it says:

"List of languages spoken by group"

Not just first or official languages. I suggest that if you are to be bold when editing, make sure you can back up your arguments properly. --Gibmetal 77^talk 11:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is obscure and doesn't say whether or not second languages are included. In fact, it is you who needs to back up your argument if you wish to include second languages. As I've said, including second languages is not standard for ethnic groups.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not specify, which means it can be included as there are no rules. So please do not make up your own standards on wikipedia.

As for not being able to undo edits because no one has yet agreed with me - Likewise. So I will set it back to its original state and then, if you like, we shall discuss it here and wait for the input of other editors until we reach consensus. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I firmly agree that the language section should remain as it is. It is a fair reflection of the multi-lingual nature of the Maltese people. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But wait a second - only 400,000 out of 740,000 Maltese (ie. 54%) live in Malta, and those figures are only for Malta, which means that only 36% of Maltese speak Italian, and only as their second language at that! Since the languages section of the infobox is only meant to have *first languages* (not policy, but standard nonetheless - see for example the fuss made when I tried to add English and German (spoken by 87% and 70% of Dutch respectively) to the Dutch people page[5]), this makes it especially clear that Italian does not belong there.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Read this article [6] for further information about the peculiar relationship between Maltese/Italian. Perhaps it will help you (Yolgnu) understand why Italian should be included. Regarding your attempt at adding English/German to the Dutch infobox yesterday: the situation there is in no way comparable. Hence the leeway offered by the Template:Infobox Ethnic group when dealing with special cases such as this. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that article supports your argument; in fact, it argues that Italian is declining in Malta. By the way, please assume good faith.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your history of destructive editing to Maltese articles makes assuming good faith (on your part) difficult. But I'll surely try! Regarding that article: it substantiates a direct link between the Italian language and the people of Malta. When it is indeed no longer relevant, the information can be removed: but not before, and certainly not by somebody who hasn't researched the issue. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't see what in the article supports your argument. Would you mind quoting the relevant detail?--Yolgnu (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Think of how affirming it will be on your own journey towards understanding Malta and the Maltese for you to discover the reasons yourself! Please read the article thoroughly. If you're still having problems, I'd be glad to show you the way. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about "my own personal journey towards understanding", this is about misrepresenting sources. Please quote the relevant detail so we can include it in the inline citation. And anyway, I don't have time right now for scouring sources - I've got a busy agenda.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your zeal for Malta, Kalindoscopy, but vandalising my talk page isn't the way to show it.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yolgnu: you don't understand my feelings for Malta. However. Your constant shrieking of 'vandalism!!!' whenever you run into opposition is rather annoying. I politely responded to your accusation of 'vicious editing' (or some such) on your talkpage, with examples of others who've also noticed your misguided edits. That is all. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I haven't called any of your edits vandalism except when they've been on my talk page. In fact, my supposed "shrieking of vandalism" is quite similar to your shriekings of "agenda!!!", "defacement!!!" and "antisemitism!!!" (pretty ironic since I'm Israeli, eh?)--Yolgnu (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice you still haven't quoted the relevant detail from the source.--Yolgnu (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[An Israeli in Australia? Kosher barbies must be.. interesting..] I'll get round to quoting when I have the time: I'm juggling wiki edits with my last uni assignments. Till then, I do suggest you re-read the article yourself, but no probs either way. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Kosher barbies?!! It's hard to tell whether your racism is borne of ingrained prejudice or just ignorance.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was (an attempt at) humour.. I've attended a fair few kosher bbqs. Yolgnu, I'm tired of these weird spats with you. Hopefully your attitude will improve and we'll not have to communicate as frequently! golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that 36% of all Maltese people speak Italian is more than notable enough for it to be included in the infobox. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't! 80% of Dutch speak English and 80% speak German, but they didn't seem to like adding them to the infobox there. I'm telling you, it's only meant to be first languages. If you don't agree to remove it, I'm going to seek dispute resolution.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfuly disagree. If it is only meant for first languages, it should specify in the infobox template. --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is standard Wikipedia usage in all language articles, statements, and templates, as well as in standard linguistic literature, that a comment "X% of the population speaks Y language" means ONLY native speakers. If nonnative speakers are included, then the statement must be modified to say, "X% of the population speaks Y language either natively or as a second language." This is standard usage both in Wikipedia and in the linguistics community at large. (Taivo (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Using Gibmetal77's criteria, then an article on "American People" would have to list thousands of languages, since there are Americans that speak Hmong, Hungarian, Hebrew, Hausa, and Hindi as second languages. Indeed, they even speak these as first languages. But the line must be drawn very strictly at official languages or native languages with a large percentage of speakers. The number of native speakers of Italian on Malta is undoubtedly very, very small and it is not an official language so it is inconsequential as a "language of Malta" for template purposes. The section on multilingualism quite adequately discusses the use of Italian in Malta. However, the multilingualism section should be written a little more clearly in order to distinguish between the languages that are native languages and the languages that are primarily second and third languages. (Taivo (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Actually, 66% of Maltese people speak Italian: [7]. Italian was also the only official language of Malta pre-1930s. The language is strongly tied to the population, and the article should continue to reflect this. 78.146.51.45 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NO. That source clearly states that 97% of Maltese speak Maltese as their MOTHER TONGUE. That figure you cite is ONLY for second languages. (Taivo (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

No one said it was as a first language. I suggest you learn to control your speech. However, the reason there is such a high figure for learning Italian as a second language is due to the historical influence - consider that the same source states that only 23% of English people can speak French. It is obvious Italian is there to stay in the infobox, and any removal of it will be reverted as POV pushing, so it is simply becoming tiresome now that some users still try to continue doing so. 78.146.51.45 (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In Malta, 86% "prefer" to use Maltese in conversation, 12% use English, and 2% Italian: [8]. Hardly insignificant. 78.146.51.45 (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The source you're citing actually very cleary states that 97% of Maltese have Maltese as their first language and 3% have English as their first language. These template boxes are ALWAYS for native speakers, NOT for multilingualism. This is very standard Wikipedia usage--NATIVE speakers and NOT second language speakers. (Taivo (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC))

Despite the fact that you seem to think it is okay, I do not appreciate your constant use of capital letters for emphasis, and if you check the Style Manual, you will see it clearly states that Wikipedia dislikes use of capital letters in this way, and encourages italics if emphasis needs to be indicated.

Secondly, are you just ignoring this?: "In Malta, 86% "prefer" to use Maltese in conversation, 12% use English, and 2% Italian"?

Thirdly, I would appreciate it if you didn't lie. The source states 97% have Maltese as their native language, and 2% have English - not 3%. It is therefore suggestable, based on the fact that 2% of the population "prefer" to use Italian in conversation, that the remaining 1% has Italian as their native tongue.

Fourthly, you are not in a position to establish what goes into the boxes and what doesn't. Italian is historically linked to the country, having been the official language there, and there are today 66% of the population able to speak it, with 2% "preferring" to speak it - so it certainly warrants some mention.

I have adjusted the article to distinguish the difference between Italian's status, and that of Maltese and English on the islands. This preserves the information, but ensures that there is no confusion.

Now can we perhaps learn to conduct ourselves a little better next time? - not start shouting when you don't get your way? - not edit war to continue the viewpoint pushing? - not self-appoint yourself as the decider of how things are done? - you know, unless its all too much to ask? 89.242.104.114 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting rid of IP sockpuppets

Any headway made yet? User:89.243.57.7 is a ripe example. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so I'm apparently now Yolgnu *sighs*, despite the fact I live in a separate continent. Nonetheless, may I point out that Kalindoscopy is trying to introduce the propaganda of the Maltese people being a continuous "northern italian, catholic race", as fact. I am sorry, but this is not acceptable, and not true by any measure. I think page protection may be in order. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Stop drawing conclusions out of the air.. changing 'propaganda' to 'account' in no way invalidates the INFORMATION within the paragraphs following the introduction. People do read the things (one would hope so..). I find your immediate assumption that this is all somehow racial very distasteful. It's this kind of blind obsession that weakens the project. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with your utterly annoying and time-consuming irritance before, I suggest others take a look at Kalindoscopy's history. He has continually been trying to strengthen Italian presence in its language, people, and culture. He has been blocked extensively, and has a history of wikistalking and causing trouble wherever he goes. I am getting tired of this now. The theories were propaganda spread by the ruling powers of the time - there is no debate about that. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am assured of your identity: it was I who accused you of wikistalking, after all. As to pushing a pro-italian agenda.. meh. If anything at all, I'd push the pro-british garbage (coz London rulez). My changes and opinions re language/culture of Malta are, I think, fair and entirely accepting of our Semitic heritage. You don't understand where I'm coming from because I want to make honest changes to Wikipedia, not embittered ones. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the new IP with the message that if it can have a reasonable discussion here, I'll unblock. kwami (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll help and things will be sorted. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion

What's happened to the image? Are there plans to replace it with a new one/reinstate the previous picture? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP

Kindly stop vandalising the article. Cheers, את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

One, learn the rules.

Two, I will remind you this article is about the Maltese people - not the technicalities of their language, or their historical political ties with Libya and how they turned their back on them (as you seemed over keen to stress).

Three, please state clearly what you disagree with. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1, I entirely endorse the rules. In the face of sophistic/malevolent edits, they are entirely supportive of realistic action.

2, I agree and should represent the Maltese people as a historical presence, as well as ethnic group.

3, I have, several times now. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your naming of me as a vandal is completely unfounded and a personal attack. Also, it took over 10 times of telling you to go to the talk page to actually listen, and even now, you're not behaving.

No you have not stated what you disagree with about the linguistic edits. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The modifications contribute nothing; the existing version is largely drawn from the relevant article and has been scrutinized there (in response to frequent vandalism there, too). These articles attract a certain sort of distortion. If you would like to comment on what you find in the existing version so troubling, this is the place to do it. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As said above, this article is not about the ins and outs of the Maltese language. It is about its use by the Maltese people - so directly drawing it from Maltese language does not help. Also, stop trying to add in some odd Libyan POV. It is clear from the text that this Libyan view is not still held, hence the fact it is in "historical accounts". Also, learn to stop using personal attacks. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Explication of Maltese-Libyan relations, in a single sentence, enhances the paragraph. It contributes to the context and 'historicity' of the account. The technicality of the Maltese language section (if it really is technical, it is perfectly intelligible to any literate layman) is perhaps necessary in explaining its unique heritage. I have not used 'attacks', I have only offered my honest observations of your conduct. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether you see it as an attack or not, continually calling me a "vandal" is recognised by the community as an attack. The "technicality" is in no way neccessary, and by its very definition, WP:UNDUE, as is your description about how Malta turned its back on Libya - it has nothing to do with the article, and is clearly a POV push. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As an act of "popular sentiment" it is a clear illustration of the exerted will of the Maltese. It also contextualizes the Malta-Libya relationship. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But its not relevant for the sixth time. That goes on the article on Malta-Libya relations, not amongst historical descriptions of the Maltese ethnicity. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese 'ethnicity' (which it seems you narrowly define as simply genetic?) is rather conclusively discussed and offers little in the way of Libyan commonality. However the breadth of ethnic identity merits the inclusion of its historical expression. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No-one said that the Maltese are genetically linked to the Libyans. The Libyan section is clearly under the Historical Accounts section, and a quick look at the modern day view section highlights this isn't accepted as truth by scientists today - so don't worry about your anti-Libyan POV. Like I said, the rest is undue. No matter, the admins have been notified so they can help with the situation - as you obviously aren't prepared to respond any other way. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(above comment substantially edited by the IP, my comment below references both) את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not being overly defensive (I have nothing to defend) I am simply educating you. I welcome the arrival of a few admins: I still believe you are not entirely uninvolved with former edits to these articles and have reasons to hide your true identity. Let me take a moment to remind you, at the risk of sounding platitudinous, that on Wikipedia and in daily life “Liars begin by imposing upon others, but end deceiving themselves”. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please. Both sides have made a mistake here. User:Pietru shouldn't have called a good faith edit 'vandalism' and 78.145.16.3 should not have made the same edit three time, nor should User:Pietru have reverted it three times. So say sorry, shake hands and discuss the subject at hand in an objective manner. Perhaps waiting till after the weekend will help both of you to relax. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It has come to light that the IP is in fact this odd character: [9] [10]. The page has been semi-protected by Tone. Reverting "Iamandrewrice"'s edits was plainly necessary. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the WP:AN bit about the IP's disruptive edit warring. While I'm not interested in defending the IP's actions, I do note that it looks like his most recent bit, about the historical accounts of the origins of the people have a kernel worth looking at. As I read the 'unvandalized' version, it veers from talking about with which other cultures the Maltese attributed their origins, to a commentary on their political direction. The IP's edit seems instead to continue talking about revisions to the genetic heritage narrative. Why is this 90 degree left turn preferable to the IP's version? I see there is a citation, but citations aren't enough if the content is unrelated. Either the unvandalized version is poorly written with a good citation, or truly goes off into the wilderness, and needs to be revised, probably in line with the IP's edit, like it or not. ThuranX (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the cite says nothing about Malta's association with Libya concerning 'origins'. It was a political situation. In fact it's inclusion at all doesn't seem justified; I am tied to neither version especially in light of just how 'off into the wilderness' the section gets, discussing political history rather than actual origins. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh look "Pietru", despite your attempts to try and pretend I'm a banned user to discredit me, my edit is still more favored in the community over yours. Nice try. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You are User:Iamandrewrice. Appropriate action has been taken against you; I shall not condescend to these conversations again. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And what is your proof that I am this user? You really should think these things through. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on the situation, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#my Wikistalker. Rather clear that this is the same disturbed editor, turns out he's got a history messing around with Euro interest articles and Maltese articles. Admin action regarding this latest bout of vandalism/malicious editing is pending. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara, għax ma tmurx tilaq żobb buzznannuk? ja liba! (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what they actually said? They said that my IP address does not fit with those used by that user. 78.147.7.85 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have, following advice from various editors and admins, decided to ignore the IP (User:Iamandrewrice) when it starts trolling this way. Obviously, I endorse nothing it says. Pietru (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's some additional information regarding the IP's connection to User:Iamandrewrice and it's trolling MO: it is from the same range as a third of known accounts used by this editor, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. The editor's bizarre behaviour is identical, as are the articles edited. User:Knepflerle offered this salient suggestion on a possible course of action: (Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used) - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Pietru (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Dun Karm pittura Caruana Dingli 140x190.jpg

The file File:Dun Karm pittura Caruana Dingli 140x190.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Dun Karm pittura Caruana Dingli 140x190.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Maltese and "Semitic topics"

Maltese speak a Semitic language and should therefore be included, they are included but 2 Wikipedia users have decided to remove it, genetically, Maltese are as European as Ashkenazi Jews, and Ashkenazi Jews are also included in the Semitic topic, geographically neither live in the near east (Ashkenazis have started coming with the rise of Zionism but historically lived mainly in eastern Europe), so either both remain or both be removed. Guy355 (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

So by this logic Jamaicans should be classified as Indo-Europeans. Hagar90 (talk) 1:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No because Jamaicans aren't an ethnicity, same goes for Americans, Australians, Mexicans, Brazilians etc unless we're talking about natives and Jamaica's natives are extinct. Besides, Indo-European and Semitic are terms that apply only to languages, there are no such races, they used to exist thousands of years ago but they basically mixed into extinction and their legacy is the first root of the language families they formed as well as partial genetic admixture in modern populations. Guy355 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I am completely aware of this but those Semitic topic links lead to articles such as "Semitic people" that state "As language studies are interwoven with cultural studies, the term also came to describe the extended cultures and ethnicities, as well as the history of these varied peoples as associated by close geographic and linguistic distribution. Today, the word "Semite" may be used to refer to any member of any of a number of peoples of ancient Middle East including the Akkadians, Assyrians, Arameans, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Jews), Arabs, and their descendants." You clearly stated Semitic refers only to language but these links also refer to ethnicity in which case Malta and its cultural identity should not be included. Hagar90 (talk) 2:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There are exceptions to the rules such as Ethiopians, Maltese, Ashkenazi Jews etc. However, I must admit that there are many double standards in that topic, to say Jew is to generalise beyond reason, and what irritates me if one removes Maltese but leaves Ashkenazis or removes Ashkenazis but leaves Maltese or removes Ethiopians but leaves Maltese etc is that it's completely hypocritical, for example, Ashkenazis and Maltese genetically are equally "European" (both plot exactly in the gap between Europe and the near east, between Greeks and Cypriots respectively) and both were Europeanized linguistically for the past 1,000 years and culturally 1,000 years for Maltese and around 300 years ago Ashkenazis. The sad truth is that Wikipedia is filled with status quos that are impossible to alter, such as removing Ashkenazis and Maltese from the topic, no one may object to the removal of Maltese but cohorts of users will object to the removal of Ashkenazis, even if it's in favour of reason, that would cause hypocrisy and cherry picking. Guy355 (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Italian is not used

I see users keep editing this page to list Italian as a used language.

I have lived in Malta all my life and I can say that very, very few use Italian in their everyday life, certainly not enough for it to be considered one of our main languages. While it is true that many of us understand Italian, it is not used in professional workplaces, nor at home unless one is talking to other Italians. Even in rural villages, Italian isn't spoken much. Gurdijak (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Gurdijak

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Maltese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=3424
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220031047/http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/.../dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm... to http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/.../dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm...
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-magazine/February2005/27-LI-Maltese.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/melitahistorica/index1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic sections

Several sections of this article relate to issues that are off topic with the Maltese people. They should be moved to articles such as History of Malta and sub-pages. I will do some changes in this regard.--Dans (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maltese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919160121/http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/mal_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/mal_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128095746/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

DNA theory

DNA tests do not prove that two unrelated nations are "related". They prove that the unrelated nations have MIXED. The whole world is mixed and no pure nation exists. Romance Romanians and Slavic Bulgarians are largely shown to have similar genetic codes. Finns an Hungarians are said to have their neighbours' DNA. But to be speaking Finno-Ugric languages, it simply means that the Germanic/Slavic people etc. to intermarry with Hungarians and Finns etc. assimilated in the process. Bottom line: Arabs went to Malta, and history has never recorded Arabs ever leaving Malta either in whole or in part. To that end, the modern Maltese have a pedigree in the Arabs. The culture brought by the nations who would become assimilated by the pre-existing Maltese nation does not depend on the nations mixing; one can acquire an influence without mixing. So the Maltese are only as Italian as the Balkan Slavs and Greek are Turkic. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I make a proposal here. I know what you're saying and you're totally correct. DNA is sketchy and if the test results of a select number of people held any merit then the first thing big nations would learn is that people from one region are "unrelated" to their ethnic affiliates in another. It's just that I personally have had similar discussions on other articles and the best thing both times - tried and true - was the full removal of this segment. I refer to Azerbaijanis and Czechs where both times I argued against editors who suddenly believed these were related to unrelated nations based on centuries of intermarrying. With regards Italians, note that the claim that Italian people and Greeks are commonly descended is not reciprocated on the Greeks article (which it should be if true), just as the Greeks article also dispenses with a "related people" section. Some time ago I was planning to create a discussion on whether it would be best to remove this part altogether, or simply tweak it so we can have "associated nations" in which case it would be fine to add modern nations whose forerunners mixed, as well as linguistic ancestors except where a Pidgin development has been forced on an enslaved people. Does this sound a good solution? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

JO I will support your idea and thanks for the positive outlook. At the moment I'm in conflict with one user with a pro-Italian agenda to whom DNA and ethnogenesis are being used as weaponry to claim Maltese people AND Greeks (at the Italians article) are related to Italians. "Related" means having a common ancestor and if this is correct in the case of Maltese people, we don't need a source to show how dominant the Italian gene is in the blood of Maltese people, we need a source showing that the Maltese are a hybrid due to every Maltese person having Italian blood in him, and that's an impossible ask. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If I may butt in here (sorry for having followed Edin Balgarin via their contribs history): Yes, please, out with the "related" field from the infobox. This is really a general problem and these fields ought to be removed from most if not all such boxes. The simple fact is: there is no commonly accepted, sourcable and coherent set of criteria for what constitutes "relationship" of ethnic groups. Being "related" could mean any combination of any of the following factors: (a) speaking historically related languages; (b) speaking similar languages; (c) sharing a high precentage of genetic material; (d) sharing common history; (e) sharing some cultural traits; (f) sharing some political/ideological affinity with each other (i.e. populations wanting to see each other as related). None of these factors can be expected to align with any of the others. Whenever we get the kinds of conflicts and edit wars we've been seeing here, it's invariably because each of several editors favours one of these criteria, considering it self-evident that it alone consitutes what "relatedness" really means, and is quite incapable of taking in the competing view that favours some other factor. In reality, in all these conflicts, all parties are equally mistaken. The issue is not that one of these criteria is the right one and others are wrong; the issue is that any of them is as good as all the others, because all of them are arbitrary, unprincipled, unsourced, and therefore ultimately "WP:OR". Sure, we can easily find sources that confirm that group X shares a lot of mitochondrial DNA with group Y, or that the languages spoken by X and Z belong to a common family, or that the foundational core of group X migrated from the same place as group Y a thousand years ago or whatnot. But what you'd really need would be a consensus of reliable sources saying explicitly: "For any two groups to be called 'most closely related', the decisive criteria are A, B and C, and on the basis of these criteria, the group most closely related to X is Y." Needless to say, you will never find such a source, because actual scholarship simply doesn't speak about ethnicities in terms of ranking lists of which groups are "most closely related". If scholarship doesn't do it, neither should we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicely explained Fut.Perf., so thanks for the input. Based on this above rationale alone I am confident wider consensus is realistically achievable and so if Juicy Oranges wishes to begin the discussion at the relevant project (or create one) then I'll follow his contributions and make my points IN SUPPORT of the removal of the "related people" entry of the infobox. On this very note, I'll now refrain from touching the Italians and Maltese people articles, effectively leaving the other editors to do as they please; the outcome on how we move forward or obtain consensus will come about in time I am sure. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Maltese

About famous people in Malta 94.17.91.25 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The history just doesn't add up and feels inaccurate with the language

somehow all arabs were expelled, and replaced with italians and spaniards replaced all semitic people yet we somehow have the maltese language and it seems to imply we are basically intruders, that romance people came first then arabs came back. as a maltese person i am worried that the source may be trying to push a certain narrative and i think it should be investigated Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)