Talk:Malta

Template:FAOL

Any mention of the U.K. blocking Malta from entering the E.U?

Just for the reason that Malta was a former British colony?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Immigrants

The paragraph on immigrants in the demographics section needs re-written to conform to a neutral point of view. It is biased against the immigrants at the moment. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

And why is that? Whi isn't it neutral? Where did I igve my own personal opinions? I just gave the facts. Please go to the edit history and re-read the paragraph carefully. There is no personal opinion.

I agree69.118.222.77 13:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewritten. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question, is "generally follow EU.." strong enough? That sounds like a description pre-acession.. should it not be "immigration follows EU law/treaty/etc"? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 00:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My objective was to create a sort of backbone. The only well-researched part is the illegal immigration section, which IMO shouldn't be given any more space than legal immigration (so I kind of put in some fill to keep the balance). I'm sure someone else will come up and make this section much better (though the information there is actually true, it's common knowledge to me rather than research).

In fact, given GroundZero's question, I'm starting to believe that, yes, the illegal immigration section is not supposed to be here at all! I was thinking maybe a seperate article on illegal immigration in Malta would serve a good purpose and we cut out most of the stuff from here. There we could expand the scope to include the humanitarian side of things (ex. Amnesty International, Graffiti Movement) though still keeping away from newsite-style reporting of incidents. I think it would be beneficial to Malta and also encyclopedically relevant to have an actual article on this controversial subject which keeps a strict NPOV and to actual verifiable facts.

_└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 11:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to the term 'irregular immigration', there is no such thing. There is illegal immigration. There is a wikipedia article on illegal immigration but none of irregular immigration. It is illegal to come to this country without papers. Breaking the law is not irregular, it is illegal. Irregular immigration is not a neutral term. It is a politically-correct term dreamt up by some Maltese media that have liberal views vis-a-vis illegal immigration.

I do not think that illegal immigration should be used in this case, ase the immagrants usually leave their country because of wars, political conflicts and poverty. Therefore the term irregular immigration is more appropriate. Keith Azzopardi 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the immagrants coming to Malta can be of a benefit to us. This is because employers working in construction aren't finding enough workers, and by paying a small sum o the immagrants, they would both find workers and pay them at a low price. On the other hand, the immagrants won't be kept idle and can be easier to keep an eye on. would someone please include this point of view? Keith Azzopardi 22:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

minor issues

ST PAUL'S SHIPWRECK

The reference to Marsaxlokk should be removed as this assertion is based on wrong interpretation of a word in the Acts of the Apotles. I had discussed this topic extensively in the daily newspaper The Times (of Malta) and gave ample reasons and solid arguments on this topic. The eronious belief was due to lack of comprehension of the Jewish Calander (see Wikipedia), the wrong transposition of dates by Dionysius Exigius (Wikipedia), lack of refernce to The Acts of Peter and Paul (Wikipedia), the length of stay in Malta, etc.

PLEASE REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO MARSAXLOKK as it appears in the English version. It does not appear in any of the other languages, especially Italian.

---

402,668 of whom 199,580 (49.6%) were males and 203,008 (50.4%) were females.

Over the last decade this ratio was of 95 males to 100 females.

These statements don't seem to match, the percentages imply a ratio of about 98 to 100. (has the ratio been shifting over the last decade?)

Also the migration section refers to Malta as the Southermost tip of the EU.

Sovietbot 08:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote. M2F ratio should be fixed. The southernmost tip is quoted from a ministry press release. I'm not sure if Portugal extends further south; see if you can find a source or something. In that case we can rephrase to something like "southernmost tip of the EU in the Mediterranean" given its context to illegal immigration. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 14:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, the south of Malta is not Europe's most southern point: Malta is Europe's 4th southernmost country (excluding France's départements d'outre-mer and similar); Spain (Punta de Tarifa), Cyprus and Greece (island of Gavdos), rank 3rd, 2nd, and 1st respectively.

This statement is in the geography section of this very article. Those are all EU member nations, so Malta clearly can't be the southernmost tip of the EU in the Mediterranean. Would something like "Due to Malta's proximity to the African continent" be more appropriate? Sovietbot 18:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sovietbot adjust as you think is appropriate. In the meantime, we'll seek an official verification from the Minsitry if need be. Kindly indicate sources of your information Maltesedog 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Only problem is that his source is this very article (see what happens when no sources are cited? grrr)! Anyway, I have a hunch that the geography paragraph refers to landmass while the ministry referred to the territorial waters (which would make sense). _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The solution as I see it is to state that Malta is the Central southern most point of the EU. Keith Azzopardi 22:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Canary Islands are even further south, aren't they? --AJKGordon 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Motto

The motto of Malta is said to be "Virtute et Constantia". If I recall correctly this appeared in the coat-of-arms of the State of Malta (1964-74) but not those of the Republic of Malta. No mention of a motto is made in the Constitution. Can anyone offer a citation justifying the inclusion of this motto here?

Demdem 13:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally throughout the years Malta has used that motto. You are correct, it did appear their. In fat the motto was part of the national emblem see [1]. It has appeared in the FIFA world cup website [2] more recently. I believe this is correct. Maltesedog 15:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

According to [3] (a governement page), it is the motto of the National Order of Merit, not the national motto. I searched for quite a long time, and could find no reference that it is still the national motto. The FIFA website is not a reliable source. For example, it says that the motto of Cambodia is national harmony [4], when the constitution says it is Nation, Religion, King [5] (article 4). I'm removing it untill someone provides a reliable source; I'll try and find something in the library on Monday. Pruneau^talk 02:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Maltesedog: when adding an external link, you only need single square brackets, as in [http://www.example.org]: [6]. Double brackets are for internal links, as in [[Malta]]:Malta.

What about the other site? I will sent an e-mail to the relevant department and will revert. Maltesedog 07:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The other website is personal webpage that does not prove reliability; it also talks about the motto in the middle of the description of the coat of arms. When I read the sentence, I thought it meant the motto was part of the coat of arms, when it is not (anymore). Thanks a lot for contacting the relevant department, I'm happy that you care that much! Pruneau^talk 09:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

We will shortly get a reply from the cabinet office as this was referred to them from the DOI Maltesedog 12:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you simply love bureaucracy? By this time next year it will be at the FBI's. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 23:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.. in fact they did not reply to date.. maybe they don't know? let's await a bit more.. if they don't reply we'll ask a historian. My opinion is to retain the present motto despite we are not sure of it.. its the only proof we have.. unless proved otherwise!! It surely was between 1964 and 1974... it can't be it was removed from the constitution because we use the 1964 constitution as amended by several acts.. i do not believe such a thing would have merited deletion Maltesedog 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. We have no proof that this is used as the motto, so we have no reason for listing it. The constitution defines the national flag and anthem, but not a motto (nor the coat of arms, for that matter). If it is, I find it strange that we can find no reference - usually, mottoes are used a lot in official documents. We should not do any guesswork, no matter how likely you believe it is that it is true. Pruneau^talk 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The strange thing is that there was surely no revision in the constitution which removed the motto. We await an official reply ok Maltesedog 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have received this official reply which does not resolve anything. I have resent another e-mail and queried, directly what is the motto of Malta!! I was given just a history of this motto and how its usage was stopped. ~~

The motto ‘Virtute et Constantia' featured in the Malta armorial ensigns [coat of arms] referred to in Govt Notice No 550 published in Govt Gazette of the 12 October 1964.

This was replaced by the Emblem of Malta as per Act No XXXIII of 1975 which did no longer feature the quoted motto. Instead the words “Repubblika ta’ Malta” were inserted.

This latter emblem was subsequently replaced by means of Act No XXIX of 1988. Here again the motto “Virtute et Constantia” was not included but the words “Repubblika ta’ Malta” were retained.

'The 1988 emblem is still in vigore. Maltesedog 11:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I think the reply solves it all. Malta had a motto in 1964 which was removed in 1975. Since 1975 there have been no new mottos so today there is none. Demdem 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be but there is no official "no". I am awaiting a reply from the cabinet office. Maltesedog 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

From Interdict (Roman Catholic page)

This belongs with the Malta article, not with the Interdict article:

The anthropologist Jeremy Boissevain argues that this helped in the secularisation process.

What occurs with this is not my concern. JBogdan 21:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

MALTA - JUNE 11, 1940 / SEPTEMBER 29, 1943.

The first Italian air raid against Malta took place on June 11, 1940. It was led by 10 bombers "CANT/Z 1007", which attacked the island on 6.55 A.M.. Other attacks followed until 7.30 P.M.. The Italian attacks caused in Malta 40 victimes. These air raids were very important because they extended WWII to the Mediterranean Sea and to Africa. On September 29, 1943 on board the battleship "Nelson", in front of Malta, Eisenhower (for the United Nations) and Badoglio (for Italy) signed the unconditional surrender of the Kingdom of Italy.

Removal of merge proposal

I removed the merge proposal of Maltese cities / List of Maltese cities or whatever. The former article was nominated for deletion and the result was to merge into the List article. I see no conceveable argument where an article which is supposed to be merged and deleted should be merged into yet another article. When Maltese cities article is merged into List of Maltese cities, then we may talk about merging (or, better imho, linking to) in the Malta article. Both articles are a complete mess and very slightly relevant to the Malta article, and the only result would be scrap book like article and a lower overall quality. again, I have no idea who nominated this merger, but imho it is completely pointless, and also no discussion was opened to this with a simple link to the old discussion for merging into the List. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 12:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

I must say, I think the pictures used on this article are appalling; none of them really do any justice to the magnificent beauty of our islands. Surely, there are better photographs of Mnajdra temples available (an aerial shot perhaps?)? And surely there are better pictures of the Grand Harbor?! And we should also add pictures of certain key buildings such as the Cathedral in Valletta and perhaps the Mosta Dome? Just my two cents. Marcus1234 18:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A pic of the interior of the Con-Cathedral would be great, so would a pic of Mdina lit at night. Also, can someone find a better pic of a local market, and another to insert instead of graduation pic? Keith Azzopardi 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a few pics of the Maltese paper money and coins could also be inserted, and the new euro coins for Malta...217.145.10.54 16:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm working on it. The problem is a lot of the good pictures online are copyrighted. I'll probably just go and take a few pictures myself when I can. Marcus1234 09:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a number of pictures of Malta that might be of interest to readers, but unfortunately I cannot release them for use on Wikipedia itself. Any interest in linking to them? The URL is http://www.slayman.com/images/europe/malta/ . Astigmat 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I run a Malta tourism Site and I have got some interesting photos. I try to keep changing them as often as I can so there is quite a variety of subjects. If anyone wants to have a look you may do so on the following link: http://www.eyemalta.com/malta/gallery.asp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.108.239 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southern Europe whose scope would include Malta. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Climate question

First of all thank you to every one who has contributed, very interesting article to read. However I could not understand the temperature chart. Are the colours significant? if so they do not seem to correspond to the figures. Also is the year average correct? It seems very low given that 10 of the months are higher. Thank you

I've just checked the source for the temperature chart and it appears that the headings are misaligned. Year should be first rather than last. This is my first edit to wikipedia so I'm not sure how to change it. Help please.

I've changed the headings but the colours still seem wrong. Is there a standard colour/temperature correlation? I've also moved the climate section slightly so the main heading covers the whole section, hope that's acceptable. Changed the colours now. John Parsons 86.30.11.190 16:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Population and area

I don't know how to create a new thread so I'm posting my argument here... I've changed the sentence in the first paragraphy that states Malta is the smallest country in the EU both in population and in area... Luxembourg's population is smaller than Malta's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.46.61 (talk) 10:37, February 2, 2007 (UTC)

No it's not. Malta's population is 400,000. Marcus1234 12:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:35 (UTC)

Noachian deluge ?

"Malta has been inhabited since shortly after the Noachian Deluge." Is this for real or a sabotage? 88.114.253.26 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion - Arrival of St Paul in Malta

ST PAUL'S SHIPWRECK

The reference to Marsaxlokk should be removed as this assertion is based on wrong interpretation of a word in the Acts of the Apotles. I had discussed this topic extensively in the daily newspaper The Times (of Malta) and gave ample reasons and solid arguments on this topic. The eronious belief was due to lack of comprehension of the Jewish Calander (see Wikipedia), the wrong transposition of dates by Dionysius Exigius (Wikipedia), lack of refernce to The Acts of Peter and Paul (Wikipedia), the length of stay in Malta, etc.

PLEASE REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO MARSAXLOKK as it appears in the English version. It does not appear in any of the other languages, especially Italian.

Even if for arguments sake it had to be considered that the shipwreck occured in November, three months later (as per the Acts of the Apostles) would mean February. Not even the most irresponsible and drunk ship master would dream of leaving port in February. January, February and March are noted for strong winds up to gale force. Up to 2 centuries ago, before the building of the breakwater in the grandharbour, even navy ships sank during a big storm. More recently, the BUSH-GORBACHOV meeting faced a similar storm in Marsaxlokk harbour.

Paul could only have been shipwrecked in winter.

The Acts of Peter and Paul, although apocriphal, is a noted writing that gives many details not available in any of the canonical books. Among others, these acts state clearly that after his sojourn in Malta, Paul reached Syracuse (Sicily) of 28th May)

The idea of November and Marsaxlokk was originated by some one trying to invent without doing proper research.

The Jewish calendar of 60 CE (AD) was very different from that used after the fall of Jerusalem (80 CE) The Jewish calendar was changed at least three times and corrolation can be off by three months and up to 3 years.

Easter (the Jewish Passover) even today varies by up to 45 days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saidfh (talk • contribs) 12:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Maltese cross

Is there some resentment to refer to the maltese cross in this article? A while ago I was surprised not to find it mentioned here, then added that it appears on the euro coins, and then that was changed to say the george cross appears on it. I'll put that straight again. Just check out Maltese euro coins. DirkvdM 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not resentment, it's that while it may be the most recognisable symbol related to Malta (note I do not say "Maltese symbol") it does not related to some historical landmark (as is, the case, for example, with the George Cross). Where you've added it is, in fact, out of place: how does it related to 1942, gallantry during WWII or the heraldry of the national flag?Demdem 11:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My first edit was in a different section and the second one was not an addition but a correction of what was in the history section. So don't blame me for it being in the wrong place now. :) Anyway, there should be a link to the Maltese cross somewhere in the article. If you can think of a better way to put it in, then please feel free. DirkvdM 06:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Culturemalta.jpg

Image:Culturemalta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Demographicsmalta.jpg

Image:Demographicsmalta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Economymalta.jpg

Image:Economymalta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Educationmalta.jpg

Image:Educationmalta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I've removed the reference to Alleanza Liberal-Demokratika Malta as a conflict of interest. Johnzammit should not be editing pages on his own behalf. -FeralDruid 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Female-male ratio of the population

The article currently states: The 2005 census showed a 5013:1000 female-to-male ratio.

No, it did not show that. A 5013:1000 female-to-male ratio would mean that there were 5 females for every male, which was not the case. It would be best to just say what percentage of the population was female (or what percentage was male) rather than getting into the ":1000" ratio format. I couldn't find the underlying data that this was based on so I couldn't make the correction myself. --Metropolitan90 16:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative geographic subdivisions: intermediate levels

The article says: «There are no intermediate levels between local government and national government.». However, this gov.mt webpage states:

The Act establishes sixty-eight (68) localities. grouped in 3 regions which are constituted as follows :-

• Gozo Region - 14 Local Councils
• Malta Majjistral Region - 29 Local Councils
• Malta Xlokk Region - 25 Local Councils

Wikipedia should not state a patent untruth and could/should do better than the quoted gov. webpage and actually deliver a list of which LCs belong to each regions.

85.240.50.72 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia article is correct as it stands. It is not the Local Councils Act which groups Local Councils into 3 regions but the Local Councils Association Regulations. These Regulations split Malta into three regions only for the election of members for the Local Councils Association which has no legislative authority between the central government and the LCs.

Demdem 12:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

External links - criteria

What criteria must external sites meet to be considered elligble for inclusion as an External link?

When it comes to countries, all external sites should generally be official websites, such as governmental websites. Anything else is generally regarded as spam. Marcus1234 11:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a link to http://www.paradisemalta.com/, which is certainly not an official site. If that site is allowed, why can't something like www.guidetomalta.net be listed as an external link?

I removed that link. Marcus1234 17:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems another external link to a non-official site has been allowed: http://www.malta.cc/. Have the external link criteria become more lenient?

I include of wikitravel link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.71.152 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.paradisemalta.com/ was added again. I removed it. I also changed the link to the MEPA's mapserver, to make it clear why such a link is necessary. "Map of Malta" was too generic.

BTW by the above token, the link to maltageanology should go too, and the link to the laws of malta shoud point to http://www2.justice.gov.mt/lom/home.asp even if this official site is rather user un-friendly. --Inkiwna (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Malta

So Maltese are Arabic language??

so Population of Malta Consider themselves arabs or what ....new race??

. .

Maltese is not Arabic. If it were so it would be called "Arabic". And the Maltese are about as Arabs as the Spaniards -- where the Arabs and Moors actually stayed five centuries longer. Demdem 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sicilian tribe roots

I'm working on the Gozo article and was just looking for a citation for something. Its common knowledge that the first people who inhabited the islands were farmers who were originally from Sicily, but on the Culture of Malta article it says that they were specifically from Agrigento. Is there a source for this anywhere?

I tried a Google.com search with "Għar Dalam" "Agrigento" and there seems to be some educational results but my Maltese is not fluent, so if somebody could help that would be great. - The Daddy 02:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

What the Culture of Malta article says is that the pottery in Ghar Dalam is similar to pottery found in Agrigento which does not imply that the first inhabitants of Malta were from Agrigento. -- Demdem 21:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

errmmm.......Entertainment Culture?

Who is going to include some more info and nice photos on the growing entertainment culture? Music scenes..Festas?...paties....Night life....

that's what many of the youth who visit enjoy seeing you know!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulattardb (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the roots of the population the Maltese islands...

It is not historically true that the Maltese people derive from the Sicilians. In fact it is very difficult to trace the origins of the Maltese people. Several archaeologists believe that the pre-historic communities might have died out. Al-Himyari (a very old Arab historian) claims that the island had been deserted after the Arab conquest but archaeologists like Nathaniel Cutajar have claimed a continuity of habitation since Byzantine times.

- Maltese Scholastic

Some actual references to these statments would be very useful. aslo this discution should be carried over to here --Inkiwna (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The maltese were from Sicily. They are genetically the same. However, they are not the same as 'Italians'. This is because Southern Italy and northern Italy show genetic variations, and Malta fits into the Southern Italian genetic scope. When the greek and other mediterranean cultures influenced Malta, they also influenced Sicily, meaning that in fact, even when the population was 'mixed' (which is disputable that it was), the Sicilian population was undergoing the same thing, and in fact, during this, Malta was still receiving genetic influx from Sicily anyway. Therefore, to sum it all up, the Maltese ethnicity is genetically the same as the Sicilian, if that is what you are trying to argue. I have found plenty of references for that before on the internet, but you can look if you want. 84.13.31.185 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Languages

The current listed languages are Maltese and English. Italian should be included in brackets as a pre 1934 language. That is the only thing that is needed to be added, as the other languages (arabic, greek, etc) were never officially the national language. Italian is also important regardless of this (although that would be the main reason) because of simply how much it is involved in current day life in Malta. For this reason, I will revert the last change undoing this. That change should be kept until this has been discussed here. Thanks 89.240.93.20 (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I'm undecided about the inclusion of Italian as a former official language, several of the edits being performed recently (e.g. [7]) are either exaggerated or plainly false. As explained in the edit comment for my last reversion, Italian is not spoken on any local media at all (to my knowledge); I assume that the editor was referring to the Italian TV stations (Mediaset, RAI, etc) whose terrestrial transmissions are received in Malta due to its proximity. Similarly, it is absurd to say that English is in any way dominant, especially in the southern localities. I also disagree with the inclusion of the statement that Italian is still widely spoken because, in everyday life, it is not. If you can find any evidence to the contrary – newspapers, journals, magazines, radio transmissions, TV transmissions, etc, originating from a local source, in Italian – then I encourage you to present it here. CounterFX (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to include the status of Italian as a former official language in the article, but the infobox is for a quick summary of facts about the country, not a detailed history, and a language being official over 70 years ago does not belong there: I can't think of any other page which includes this type of information. Look, e.g. at Turkmenistan (chosen at random), which does not mention that Russian was previously, and more recently, official. So I'll revert. Drmaik (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Added text: "Italian is a compulsary subject at secondary school, with French, German, Russian and Spanish, also being popular choices."
• In source: "There are other languages in use in Maltese education: to the third language traditionally taught in the country, Italian, there has been added French, German, Russian and Spanish, studied at secondary level."

As I have already told the editor on his/her talk page, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Contriving to misleadingly inflate the importance of the Italian language in Malta may be considered a form of propaganda. I would advise the editor to discuss any issues here before being readding the content to the article. CounterFX (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how that is falsely promoting Italian. I am going to revert. IF you do not agree, then delete that small section. however, your revert also undid lots of other work I did about the English language, which is not relevant at all to what you are saying. Look at everything that you have actually reverted before doing it, for future reference to you. I am going to revert now. If you do want that section deleted, express your reasons first though. Thank you 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this section: "Italian is a compulsary subject at secondary school, with French, German, Russian and Spanish, also being popular choices." for the time being, as I think that is the part you are disagreeing with, right? well discuss... what is your problem with it? 89.241.219.79 (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That Italian is not compulsory, and the source does not say it is. CounterFX (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Added text: "Lessons at secondary school are generally given in English, with schools and universities showing preference of English over Maltese. State schools use Maltese more than Private schools, but education in either is majoritively in English."
• In source: "Both Maltese and English are used as the medium for teaching at primary level and secondary level, and both languages are also compulsory school subjects. A balance between Maltese and English is maintained much more successfully in the state schools than in the private ones, since some of the latter prefer to use mainly English. English is also the language of choice in most departments of the University of Malta, a circumstance which limits the full development of the Maltese language."

Again, you are downplaying the importance of Maltese. "Education in [both state schools and private schools] is majoritively in English" does not correspond with the source's "A balance between Maltese and English is maintained [...] in the state schools." If the source is public domain, then just copy and paste the material; otherwise, paraphrase it more faithfully. This POV pushing has been going on for a long time, and your continued use of different IPs makes it difficult to track conversations, thus my request for page semi-protection. CounterFX (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)