Talk:Malta/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dubious

What happened to plain English? This article's opening is riddled with jargon and politically correct crap. Malta is not a microstate; it's a small country with a small population. Why aren't San Marino, Monaco and Liechenstein called microstates in their articles' opening lines??? They get the benefit of "country", fortunately for those readers. This Malta article is rendered unreadable under the weight of ersatz technical expression and a pathological obsession with buzzwords over pithy but robust language. Remember your audience, please!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.59.1 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I've made a beginning by simplifying the initial paragraph, but a lot more needs to be done.Hohenloh (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a microstate. Calling it such is insulting. DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

You're incorrect. The UK has a long history of collusion with the island: the English Govt originally wanted Malta to join it as part of the United Kingdom, rather than simply remain an overseas colony. The Maltese of course refused, founded their republic and joined the EU with no real problems from any other European nation. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2008 (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)

it is not right to use the term ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. One can refer to the Opening speech by the Hon Tonio Borg, Minister for Justice and Home Affairs, of the Conference on Human Rights and the Treatment of Asylum Seekers (held on 20 Nov 2003). He said that "until December 2002, foreigners arriving illegaly in Malta were taken to Court and a removal order used to be requested after they were declared prohibited immigrants. Following an amendment to the Immigration Act, the Principal Immigration Officer can now issue removal orders to foreigners in Malta who are in breach of the provisions of the Immigration Act. There is however a right of appeal before the Immigration Appeals Board. The act of illegal immigration has been decriminalized". Therefore if it is not a crime, unauthorized migrants can be called irregular migrants.147.210.85.2 (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2008 (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)

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)

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).

Its Amazing what is written in the Arabic section of wikipedia about the population of Muslims in Malta "51,000" and in here just 3000!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.194.114 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2008 (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. Ayla (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. Ayla (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. Ayla (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. Ayla (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My IP address will not change until my computer turns off or my internet IP reaches switch-around time, so there is no need to request protection purely on the basis of that. You say that I am "downplaying", but I am simply stating what it says. The source says that English is the language of choice in University, which I have included. Would you like to suggest a re-write of that paragraph then? (Do not revert, as there were several things i made changes to in those edits, and undoing all of them is pointless). 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not reverting yet. In your wording, you have three clauses favouring English ("generally given in English", "showing preference of English over Maltese", "education in either is majoritively in English"), and one neutral ("State schools use Maltese more than Private schools"). In the source, there are three clauses favouring equality ("Both Maltese and English are used as the medium for teaching", "both languages are also compulsory", "A balance between Maltese and English is maintained"), and just two favouring English ("some of the latter prefer to use mainly English", "English is also the language of choice in most departments of the University of Malta"). Do you get my point re the distortion now? Ayla (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"I am not reverting yet"? You should not revert at all. If you revert, it will not only revert the information in question, but other edits i have made. Regarding those elements in question, to be honest I don't see how I have created a 'distortion', but for the time being I will copy over the information in exactly the wording it shows, so then at least while we are discussing it, there is something there. (Look at my layout... Now I am not being linguist-ist... lol)89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

(I was referring to your reading "he/she" as "he, she" and not "she, he", but anyway.) Ayla (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted indiscriminately because some of the edits being made recently were downright absurd and bordering on the contentiously disruptive (such as the implication that there are Italian TV stations based in Malta). If they were not performed by yourself, then all the more reason for registering an account. However, since you requested it, I will give you an account of why I reverted your last contribution part by part.

• Siculo-Arabic being a dialect of Arabic that developed in Sicily and surrounding Southern Italy: Not mentioned in source (unless I missed it); Siculo-Arabic article states: "Siculo Arabic was a dialect of Arabic spoken in Sicily between the ninth and the fourteenth centuries."
• Italian is a compulsory subject at secondary school: Claim is false, as already mentioned above.
• Lessons at secondary school are generally given in English [...]: Issue of distortion of the relative importance of Maltese and English, as discussed above.
• Addition of the Ignasi Badia i Capdevila source: Valid and most welcome, in fact I retained it.

Unless we can demonstrate that the text is in the public domain, we cannot just copy it (copyright violation). And, per WP:PROVEIT, I believe that the material should be removed until the issue has been resolved; however, I do not intend to engage in edit warring. Ayla (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of neutrality, that looks much better. However, we still need to watch out due to potential copyright issues. Ayla (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I will re-word it now. Also, no, I was correct about the Siculo-Arabic. This is because although termed as the arabic on sicily, modern definitions of sicily do not come into it... it talks about the areas that were included in rules such as the kindom of sicily, and the rule of two sicilies, in which "sicily" covered areas of southern italy as well. 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for the Siculo-Arabic definition; however, it would be better if you could provide a source to corroborate your statement. Ayla (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try search for one after I'm done with this. ;p 89.241.219.79 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing your readiness to discuss and collaborate, I have withdrawn the request for page semi-protection since it would have prevented you from editing the article (it takes four days before a newly-registered account can edit a semi-protected page). However, I would still strongly encourage you to register an account, since I would most likely re-submit a request for semi-protection if edits such as this and this (in all probability, through a different IP address) are repeated regularly. You understand that editing from a dynamic IP address destroys accountability and credibility, since it does not allow one to identify whether a set of edits were performed by the same individual, or whether the individual's history consists of any constructive contributions. Ayla (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok i'm logged in :) And thank you, I was not trying to push a POV, just enter the information I had found in the best possible wording. Crystalclearchanges (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh i found this on the Siculo-Arabic page: "Siculo-Arabic remained in use in mainland Italy (Lucera) until it became extinct in the early 14th century". So it is ok to include other areas of southern italy, right? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks fine (hadn't read till there). And the rewording looks good. Sorry to pull you out of your retirement (even though I'd already figured it was you :-p ). Thanks for the contribution, and I apologize if I failed to assume good faith. Ayla (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol its ok, I think i'm out of the retirement home now ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

I looked up some figures from the Maltese National Statistics Office website. A Foreign Language Learning document states that "those who took Italian as a first foreign language accounted for 50.9% of the total number of students who were studying a first foreign language", thus demonstrating that it is not compulsory (only one foreign language is strictly required, although several schools allow/encourage you to study two). The Languages Spoken by type table (Census 1995, Volume 4 Chapter 2) gives Maltese at 97.82%, English at 75.88%, Italian at 36.44%, and French 9.85%. Maybe we could include these figures too. Ayla (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, with regards to whether Italian was compulsary or not, I was also taking into account what my mum told me about when she was there, but I guess that's out of date now. Re the two different figures for Italian (50.9% and 36.4%), I think this means that 36.4% of people speak it fluently while 50.9% learn it... right? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My understanding is that 50.9% is the official figure of enrolled students (probably given by the Education ministry), whilst 36.4% is the figure of "self-reported" speakers (from the 1995 national census). I was thinking of including the last set of figures mostly (Maltese: 97.82%, English: 75.88%, Italian: 36.44%, French: 9.85%) in order to show that the languages are widely understood despite not being so popular as the "preferred" language of choice (English: 12%, Italian: 2%). Ayla (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've entered it into the article? how do you think it reads? by the way, what are the percentages of students studying French? Crystalclearchanges (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it ;) Crystalclearchanges (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks more comprehensive with the new figures. I might reword it a bit (later). What do you think about moving Languages at school to be a subsection of Languages rather than Education? Ayla (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

should it not be part of both? 89.242.35.84 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not. A country's main article should only give a condensed summary of these topics. Repetition would be counter-productive. However, it would be valid to include the section in both Languages of Malta and Education in Malta (not created yet) sub-articles. Ayla (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Hello Malta/Archive 2! There is a vote going on at Latin Europe that might interest you. Please everyone, do come and give your opinion and votes. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

---

snow--------

Please add the date of February 1st 1962 when snow was reported in the island, and in some inland part even sticking to the ground.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.204.195 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

The Etymology section requires a rewrite. It starts by saying the origin is uncertain, then the second paragraph takes a tone of finality that contradicts the supposed uncertainty, and appears to take the form of an argument in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, the first paragraph says that "the modern day variation is from the Maltese language" without saying what "the modern day variation" means, and implying that earlier variations aren't from the Maltese language, which makes no sense. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No section on Tourism or Transportation?

While attempting to shamelessly plug my new article Malta bus into this article, I can't believe this article has no transport or tourism sections? So for now I haven't added it as I can't see where else to put it (it is linked from the transport sub-article though) MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "ndmh" :
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/islands/dates.asp|publisher=Department of Information - Maltese Government|title=Notable dates in Malta's history|date=[[February 6]] [[2008]]}}
  • {{cite news|url=http://www.doi.gov.mt/EN/islands/dates.asp|publisher=Department of Information - Maltese Government|title=Notable dates in Malta's history|date=[[6 February]] [[2008]]}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Italo-British rivalry

Come on, folks. How could anyone claim that the pre-WWII rivalry between pro-Italian and pro-British parties is still politically relevant? Is it 2008 or 1938?

Demdem (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing information you do not politically agree with. Wikipedia is neutral, and only reflects the truth. The truth, as shown by the sources, is that influence from the two opposing parties is still very present in the country, be it to a lesser degree than as it historically was. Maltalia (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sourced information should stay: if you feel differently, you're more than welcome to add sourced amendments/alternative arguments. So far as rivalry between pro-Italian and pro-Brits is concerned, I think it's certainly still a factor in modern Malta (tho nowhere near as strong as it was). Ma nafx min hu aghar bejnithom.. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does this source say that the present day Nationalist Party is pro-Italian and the present day Malta Labour Party is pro-British? What I read is "The Nationalists were formerly the pro-Italian party but, since the post-war years, the image of this party was to change gradually and in the end they were even accused of being pro-British!".

In the spirit of compromise I propose that this paragraph is re-worded by putting things into perspective along the following lines.

Until World War II Maltese politics was dominated by the Language question fought out by pro-Italian and pro-British parties. This gave way to constitutional questions on the relations with Britain (first with Integration then Independence) and, eventually, relations with the European Union.

Happy?

Demdem (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No sorry - read the pages of the political parties themselves. Read the history sections - the information is backed up by sources. Unless you can provide a source to counteract those sources, the information stays in its form; that's the way Wikipedia works. Maltalia (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I see two problems here.

First, the inability to acknowledge that what was the case before the War is the case today. I am familiar with the history sections of the political parties -- I wrote good chunks of them myself -- and they clearly show that the language question was important but it does not feature any more.

Second, just throwing in a reference does not necessarily back up a claim. The Maltavoyager article cited as reference says that the language question was important during the war and no one disputes that. What it does not say (and therefore cannot be used to substantiate) is that "Now that Malta has joined the EU, both influences are present" which is nonsense. In my compromise text, I put things in perspective, I make good use of the Maltavoyager course and also cross-refer to the History of Malta article sections on Integration, Independence and the EU, a point which you seem to ignore entirely. I can't understand what more you'd need to be convinced.

Demdem (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Valetta

Why is it de facto capital? If it has a special status, it may be a good idea to explain this in this or Valetta article. (if I missed it, please point me to there) --Tone 21:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A de facto capital is one which receives no mention as a capital in the country's constitution or laws (if it were it would be a de jure capital). Valletta receives no such mention in the Laws of Malta and the seating of the government there is a matter of historical convention. There is a link to the de facto article. Demdem (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

While I doubt this page will be subjected to much vandalism, it's always good to have an easy to find section for addressing it.

I think the link to Crocodile Rock, under the section that lists the islands is false. Crocodile Rock is actually a song written partly by Elton John, as can be seen by clicking on the link. I'm removing it as there doesn't look like there is any reason for it being there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.28.172 (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC) Well spotted, thanks The roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Climate

I believe Climate should have its own section and not be listed in the.... History section :S Furthermore the table is very simple and primitive. It used to be much more elaborate a few weeks ago, what happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.97.148 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Paterno's Land

After hearing my family's story, i found a treaty that the Paterno's (which were Sicilians) selled most or every part of Malta's land to the priests, expecting large quantities of money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.201.116.32 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

{{RFC [topic] | section=Vandal prevention !! reason=repeated vandalism !! time=11:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Protected

I have fully protected this article in the hope that all editors will be able to work together to reach consensus on the proper content. Editors are encouraged to discuss matters here, or to pursue dispute resolution. When consensus is reached, I have no problem with any uninvolved administrator unprotecting this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the RFC/U template, as there has been no serious attempt to resolve this through discussion. As was pointed out twice at WP:RFPP, the IP's edits were not vandalism. The definition of vandalism we use here on en.wp is a bad-faith attempt to harm the integrity of the encyclopedia - these edits if sometimes misspelt or not beneficial were not made in bad faith.

However, calling an editor a "dyslexic f*ckwit" or a "moronic creep" in no way constitutes a constructive attempt at resolving a content issue; Pietru, you are very lucky not to have been blocked yet per WP:NPA for those comments and your section title ("Nispera li tmut") at the IP's talkpage.

In the absence of any real discussion of the content questions between these editors, can we unlock the article and let the rest of the world edit it again? Knepflerle (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The insults are unforgivable; however, the sustained barrage leveled against the article just got my goat. Next time something similar occurs, perhaps you'll actually do something constructive & help the article? I requested help reverting the numerous errors made by that ip and none was forthcoming and so I made all the necessary changes myself. As soon as I'd done that, the ip began its rampage all over again. Also, I can't imagine how such ridiculous and redundant edits could have been made by any human being in good faith. I think protecting the Malta page from ip abuse is the best way forward. Then again, there's always an agenda no matter what you're trying to do: Wikipedia demonstrates that beautifully, if nothing else. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. I don't really see that there's been substantive discussion, but I greatly dislike preventing people from editing. I am not placing semi-protection on the article because the great majority of recent ip edits have not been vandalism. Everyone please, if your edit is reverted, discuss your differences here. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Pietru, you have not put your apology into practice - referring the anonymous editor today as Hamallu is not acceptable, especially after a clear warning about personal attacks above. You broke WP:3RR last week, and have repeatedly made blockable personal attacks this week. There is no excuse for this. Knepflerle (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What is a term of endearment to one may appear insulting to another; I hear no such accusation from the supposedly 'injured' party. Perhaps you need to stop speaking for others Knep. Also, the WP:3RR was precipitated and participated in by several other editors and the issue was amicably resolved. Knight in shining armour you ain't. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:JustinHaber.jpg

The image File:JustinHaber.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Location

"Throughout much of its history, Malta has had a strategic location in the Mediterranean Sea."

Where was it located at other times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.166.99 (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) The sentence implies that Malta's perceived strategic importance, and not geographical location, is variable. 汚い危険きつい (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

History

What I don't get is that the earliest habitation of Malta dates from 5200 BC, while Malta was connected to Italy before 8000 BC, and the article on nearby Pantelleria, which has been an island for much longer, states that....Archaeological evidence has unearthed dwellings and artifacts dated at 35,000 years ago. Which one is right, and if they both are, how come this discrepancy? Sources?--Satrughna (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Capital de facto?

Pietru, the linked article doesn't address the de jure/de facto difference in capitals. The de facto qualification of Valletta as capital deserves to be removed - the qualification's application to other capitals is inconsistent at best. On the other hand, I have scanned your talk page and I'm not going to continue to discuss this matter with you. Iterator12n ^Talk 03:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

My (blank) talkpage? The de facto qualification reflects an historical situation that deserves to be mentioned. Your proposed reason for removing it (fictional general readers, by which you seem to mean ignorant readers) doesn't hold water so far as I can see. You haven't really offered any decent reasons for the removal yet. Either a footnote could be added here or the de facto article changed accordingly. And referring to accurate information as somehow "pedantic" is a rather poor survey of this project. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

City-state

Malta is becoming a city-state as its towns expand and converge into a largely continuous metropolitan area, rendering prescient the mural crown on its coat of arms. The last part is then referenced to an image of the coat of arms. A statement like Malta is becoming a city-state needs to be adequately sourced if it is to remain in the article, so prominently placed at the introduction. And talking about the mural crown in terms of prophecy seems odd. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

True. I moved the sentence from elsewhere in the article. It fit less well there. I don't generally like to remove info from articles, but in this case would not object to the deletion of the sentence. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Climate Section

This is a minor detail, but I don't entirely agree to the picture attached to the climate section. It simply shows a picture of Valletta. While it is a nice picture, I don't really know what it has to do with climate. Wouldn't a picture of Maltese nature be more appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.158.211 (talk) 10:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

History Section

The overall article is getting large and it might make sense to consolidate the entire history section, or at least everything through World War II, with the specialized article on Malta's History. It is my impression that the History Section in the main article is starting to gt longer, and better, than the specialized article. Any thoughts, anyone? Acad Ronin (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

They were based off one another, with no real work done to them except gathering information. This article's sections are better developed because they're more prominent and, presumably, read more often. Nice work so far. Pietru (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Eddie

Why was the photograph removed?? It should have been included, with a suitably change made to the caption, until a photo of Abela finds its way to Wikipedia. Pietru (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

France has been forgotten among the conquering powers of Malta

If you use this term, just in the beginning of the article, it is necessary to mention also Napoleon's conquest of Malta.--Arnaldo Mauri (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

External links - standards

Previously it was agreed that external links should only be official websites. Why is http://www.malta.cc/ listed? It is not an official site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.26.60 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Language

"Since Malta is such a small island, they try to provide very good education to the small population. You also don't have to pay taxes in Malta if you own property. Property value has really gone up there however, skyrocketing over the past five years. This is because the island is so small; land is limited and therefore the land has a greater retail value."

The wording of this paragraph is unencyclopedic. Someone please rewrite this or I will do it myself, Thank you gentlemen. 61.95.13.82 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Colony

Malta is not a "colony of Italy". What's with the different flag and the label "Italian Republic of Malta"? --MINGESELLE299 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Malta

"The Maltese offered to fight for him and in response Roger reportedly tore off a portion of his flag, half-red half-white, presenting it to the Maltese; this formed the basis of the flag of Malta." This account is a legend, and should not be listed on Wikipedia as a historical fact. I know there's a "reportedly", but I believe it should be stressed that this is just an unconfirmed legend. Kaiser86 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to forget that the account also derives historicity from attitudes towards it: either way, it should be referenced. Other historical accounts derive the colours from Roman, Phoenician, or Fatimid sources. 193.188.33.23 (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article structure and copyediting

Malta is an important article and needs special attention. This is not always easy to achieve when many editors are contributing information and striving for the same level of quality.
The section Ancient Civilisations has been partially cleaned up to remove overuse of the word evidence, to remove duplicated information, and to introduce an encyclopedic style of prose. However there is much work to be done on this article. Most important in the overall structure is to consider the length of the several sections that show a link to a respective main article. A section that has a link to a main article should only briefly summarise what will be found in the main article (in the same way as a lead section of any article), and all the information from the section should be able to be found in the main article.
Many parts of the article need citations and any claims that cannot be substantiated can be deleted by anyone. The normal procedure is to flag any such statements to draw the attention of other editors. However, as this article requires considerable editing, to insert tags everywhere would make the article in its existing form appear rather unsightly to anyone reading the encyclopedia. Editors usually bear in mind that they are not writiing for themselves, but rather for the comfort of others who are consulting the encyclopedia. --Kudpung (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure your continued work on the article will be very helpful! 193.188.33.23 (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I've done what I could.--Kudpung (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it? Notpietru (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - at least for the time being. I'm not an expert on Malta, I just happened to drop by while searching for something. At the moment I'm rather heavily committed to one or two other Wiki projects that need an urgent clean up.--Kudpung (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

Whoops, sorry, while making small textual improvements to the article, I also noticed that the External links section missed a link to a photo tour of Malta that used to be there before. I added the link, and then, just as I had pressed save, I saw the warning regarding suggesting having a discussion about links before we add any more.

I still think this link qualifies, as it is not commercial in any way, and it is not just a collection of vacation photos, but a gallery of photos from Malta with captions that discusses various aspects of life on Malta. (For example the issue about the hunting of birds, the old buses, the presence of mosques, signs with patron saint's names, and more.) I really think it can be considered content of encyclopedic value. I hope you agree.

uspn (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What mosques? Shouldn't that be "mosque"? Anyway.... one persons random holiday snaps don't strike me as particularly suitable for inclusion and I believe the grounds for their removal should stand. Out of curiosity, are you somehow involved with that website? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also; having gone through the site and read the "captions", it seems fairly obvious that this individual is not a Maltese scholar, nor particularly well versed in Melitensia. Some of the pictures are pretty, but little else. If you'd like to upload them to the commons (assuming they're yours) and perhaps use them in various Malta related articles, that would be helpful. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no need to come across as a grumpy old guy! #8D) I see that you commented the removal with "already deleted several times before". I have certainly not inserted it many times before, so presumably there's a discussion about this that I have missed. I would be interested to see it, so if you can point me towards it that would be great. My reason for adding the link is that in my opinion it adds to the value of the information people can find on Wikipedia. The dry, factual information on these pages fails to capture the feeling of what it's like to visit Malta. Which is unfortunate, since many people come to this page exactly because they wonder what it'll be like to visit Malta. Wikitravel will grow to be the right place for that eventually, but it's not there yet. Regarding involvement, that gallery is in deed from a trip I went on. The reason I don't classify them as average "vacation photos" is that they are taken by a semi-professional (but in this case pure donator to the Wikipedia/media community), there are no people on vacation shown in the photos and they have some perceived facts/opinions (which you may dispute) of interest to the average reader/visitor of Malta in their captions. I do add photos to The Commons (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Uspn), but as you know, Wikipedia is no gallery. The right place to put this kind of information is therefore as an external link. I'll be happy to add any of the photos in high resolution to the Malta page or any related page on request, and I may do it on my own as soon as I get around to it. I travel a lot, and I upload some of the best shots I make. Anyway, you went ahead and removed the link with no further discussion with me or anyone else. From this I conclude that you must be some kind of local deity, so I'll obviously let you decide what's right and wrong in this case. Greek term or phrase (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for exposing you as a self-promoter! Hey, it's hard to get your work recognised when there's so much excellent stuff out there. Good luck taking pictures. Also, please remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a "rough guide" for prospective travelers (especially as subjectively defined by yourself). And please maintain some civility; I'm neither old, nor grumpy. However, I am indeed a god. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

:) I'm glad I backed off, then. Anyway, this is not about being "exposed" as a self-promoter. If there's a link between myself and something I link to from Wikipedia articles, I intentionally make it easy to see that link. There's often no space for this info in the Edit summary, but a quick look at my user page should be enough for those who want to investigate. The way I see it, if it is relevant and good material, it makes little difference where it came from. If it is irrelevant, it will disappear from the article soon enough. If you have the time and energy to go through my edit list, I'm sure you'll find I do a lot more good than harm, and it's most definitely not all self-promoting. Good luck being a god. uspn (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons given, I believe its removal is justified; I'm sure the site has some visibility through Google searches, so interested parties can find it that way, or through other links to your work. Also, I didn't mean to question your other work on Wikipedia, my comments were specific to this article. Thanks! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Atlantis?

Don't you think we should remove this from the introduction. Atlantis is a myth, and if it is even mentioned in the article it should be in a seperate section and not int the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.97.148 (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would second removing the reference to Atlantis, or at least moving it to a footnote. Also, the Malta article is getting so long that I would recommend shortening the History section and moving the info to the History of Malta article.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Pruning

The article needs some good pruning. I've tried to do some (in particular with the story of the shipwreck of St Paul which appears no less than three times in this article) but someone complained that what I did was a "major edit" and asked for the matter to be discussed.

Well then, here goes:

1. In an article that's about Malta there is no need to say that the Acts of the Apostles is in the "Biblical New Testament", a point amply made in that article.

2. The same article on Acts acknowledges that it's tradition that attributes the authorship of St Luke to the text. So it's makes no sense that this article, that's neither about the evangelist or his writings, takes a stronger view on the authorship, going as far as to claim that Luke is a "historian" (he wasn't, at most he was a "chronicler") and a "eye-witness" to the shipwreck.

3. Then the claim that St Paul was shipwrecked in St Paul's Bay. Really, as if a huge "X" marks the spot.

4. There's so much verbosity. The points made in "Jesus Christ's apostle Saint Paul" or "the person who would be known to posterity as Saint Publius" can be said in so much less words (and the relevant articles offer enough explanation).

5. The Acts make it quite clear what was the name of the island that the survivors of the shipwreck landed on. There's no other primary source about the event. Quoting a book about the Greek islands published in 1828 is not only quoting a secondary source, it's quoting something that's only very incidental.

Demdem (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically your "pruning" is entirely reserved to elements of Christian history within the article's History section. Well;

re. points 1 and 2, they exist in context, after prolonged haranguing between various editors over establishing the meaning of tradition and its application to this article. Your opinion on Luke as "chronicler" vs historian has no baring on the inclusion of his name here either.

Point 3, the information has been changed, it offered a variety of other possibilities, against citations published by local (ahem) "enthusiasts" who've made this sort of thing their life's work. That the exact location is disputed should be made clear, as should the cultural ties that link the saint with said site.

Point 4... the article has been written (in places) with a somewhat unrestrained sense of reverence and at times, old fashioned diction. That hasn't entirely been purged. However, it's quite charming and generally encyclopedic in tone (where it's not boring, which isn't exactly something new to the project).

Point 5, I think that citation bolsters the fact, but then again, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of similar texts which fulfill a similar function; I'm not sure who added that, nor why.

Edits should and must be made, but always in a spirit of cooperation and respect. After all, Wikipedia has its own traditions :) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You can ascertain for yourself that I have been involved in many "pruning" exercises on a variety of themes here and elsewhere. All bona fide. That I happened to prune this bit is for no other reason that here it's a case of overkill.

On Luke, yes, my opinion of his role and standing has no bearing on the inclusion of his name here. What's important is that a claim on authorship that the articles on the Saint Luke and Acts of the Apostles are not ready to make is being made, very forcefully, in an article on ... Malta.

So to go back to the points. For the sake of simple language how about "Saint Paul" for Saint Paul? "Saint Publius" for Saint Publius? "Acts of the Apostles" for Acts of the Apostles? Whoever contributed "the person who would be known to posterity as Saint Publius" may have thought he was being solemn. What he ended up doing is giving the impression that "Saint Publius" was not the governor's real name but assigned. Not unlike, say, Saint Dismas, whose name was assigned by the tradition. When something is that misleading you hardly care if the language used is "charming".

You know what the changes I propose are. I do not claim to have the final word on the matter, all I'd care to know if what I propose is an improvement on what there is already. I see you voice other people's opinion in an effort to maintain consensus. Laudable, certainly, but what are *your* views on the substantial points?

Demdem (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the status quo. Certainly the cosmetic changes you seem to be suggesting are fine: if you have any other ideas of more substance, I'd be interested to hear them. Although I don't see the point of putting everybody's names between quotation marks... Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's actually heartening to see that the changes you previously described as "major" are now "cosmetic". My intention all along. No, I do not intend to put everyone's name in quotes just dropping the soubriquets that accumulated over time.

So shall I go ahead with the changes? I would leave brief references to the story in the introduction and history section with the account plus traditions associated with it (site of shipwreck, establishment of a Christian community, St Paul's grotto, Publius' elevation to bishop) to the "Religion in Malta" section.

On a different but similar note, how about revisiting the issue of "the only extant Apostolic See other than Rome"? Apart from having no canonical basis (the only one being between "titular" and non) even a glance at the list reveals places like Athens and Thessaloniki would indicate that this is not the case.

Cheers.

Demdem (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The edits you made didn't move information, they removed it; but if the stuff you've listed is what you actually plan, there's no issue. However I don't think everything should be moved to the Religion in Malta section; there's no clear cut boundary. The historical, cultural and religious identity of the people are way too fluid to be re-packaged that way. Fleshing things out is fine, but excising the references to catacombs from the history section, when it segues into later historical developments, wouldn't be helpful. If you'd like to make the edits, I'm sure a bit of back-and-forth editing would clear things up eventually.

Re. Only Extant See - Malta is not mentioned in that context in the article (re-read it?) anymore; it is referred to as an Apostolic See, which it is. If you plan on reintroducing that information, you should probably make a distinction between Eastern and Western Christian traditions; however, the current reference seems to work. It's the "Atlantean" link thing that might need a look. Quite bizarre. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. The Acts story and associated straditions is in the Religion section with cross-references from the introduction and the History section. The point on catacombs remains, they being important historical evidence of an early Christian community.

Agree with your point on Atlantis. I suggest a less prominent position in Ancient Civilisations in the context of the disappearance of the Bronze Age culture.

Demdem (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that seems best. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is for pruning so I've taken the piece below out.

According to the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul was shipwrecked on the island and ministered there and, indeed, Catholicism continues to be the official and dominant religion in Malta.

(above was added by User:Proxima Centauri)

What you're doing isn't pruning it's outright defacement, and pushing a transparent agenda. Discuss before making broad edits, and don't allow your work here to be coloured by prejudice. If this persists, I think admin assistance (in whatever capacity) should be considered. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's Maltese history. And then there's tradition.

I really don't see why I have to take this matter to the talk page. But, to keep people happy:

1. It's misleading and, indeed, very unfair to quote a source (in this case "The Maltese Cross" in footnote 15) in telling the story of how the locals received Roger the Norman leaving out the important qualification made in this same source that this is "according to tradition".

2. Under Frederick the Muslim population of Malta was either expelled or forced to convert. We can discuss (quoting historians) of the numbers or how forced was "forced". That is not very relevant. What is relevant is there are links (including, but not only geneological) which stayed on.

3. Which would explain why there's more to "Arab influence" other than the Maltese language. What's with an obviously Islamic-sounding surname like "Abdilla"? I cited a Times of Malta article reporting what a Professor of Linguistics had to say on the matter to add some substance. Not infallible, either of them, of course. But that's what available. And considering that quite a few sources to this article are no more than online "travelogues" it's a case of applying different quality standards across the article.

Demdem (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll address specific points soon (in something of a hurry) but it's amusing to see this distinction between history/tradition being made. The angel has his face towards the past, not the future - everything is tradition. And everything is debris (re. distinctions between newspaper articles by dubious lingusits and Oxford professors with established pedigrees). More later. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum. I'll try to be around to amuse you further next time you'll get excised about "lack of proper sourcing".

Demdem (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Art in Malta

Statue carved in wood and considered as masterpiece of the late Maltese artist Mariano Gerada in the year 1808

How is the current art situation in Malta? I say that because I have now seen 3 different images of Madonna statues from Malta that have been added and they look well above the level of usual art, from the images, see Roman_Catholic_Marian_art#Madonna_statues and Our Lady, Star of the Sea. Is there some type of special sculptural tradition in Malta that produces such a high quality of sculpture? The article mentions the influence of Caravaggio, but that was long ago. It would be good to have a section, with other images of art from Malta in a gallery. The current image shows a Caravaggio, who was not from Malta. History2007 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

While there's certainly a domestic sculptural tradition quite a few statues which adorn Maltese churches are the works of commissioned foreign sculptors, particularly Italian and French. I get the impression (stand to be corrected) that this is particularly the case with commissions in the 19th century, with more such works being produced by Maltese artists in the 20th (possibly, thanks to having art in the school curriculum).

As this article is already very long, I think that rather than a new or expanded section here what would be more helpful is expanding and elaborating the Visual Arts section of the Culture of Malta article which, amazingly, has no pictures at all.

Demdem (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There has always been a vibrant local tradition of sculpture, gilding, embroidery and other fine arts used in an ecclesiastical context. Contemporary Maltese craftsmen have had to go to Sicily and Italy because there are few individuals there as competent in the Baroque style. Under the Knights, certain work was by foreigners (eg. statuary by Domenico Guidi and Giuseppe Mazzuoli) but some of the most celebrated art was produced by local talent, such as Melchiorre Cafà. Some work was by necessity imported because of the cachet attached to it, for example work by Girolamo Lucenti, who enjoyed Papal patronage. A good study which enters into this (in the context of painting rather than sculpture) is Mario Buhagar's The Iconography of the Maltese Islands 1400-1900. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you guys know about this, the article should probably mention Mariano Gerada, which the caption says was from Malta, and a gallery of at least 3 or 4 paintings or statues at the end would look nice. I added Gerada's image here, if you want to use that. I left a message for User:Inkwina to see if the sculptor of the 2nd image is known. I started a page for Gerada anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

emigration to french algeria

of course as everyone konws here, in this english article, the british were so hugely popular with the maltese, that maltese emigrated to french algeria. official national demographic research done in french aleria shows that there were 8,908 anglo-matese and 882 english immigrates in french algeria in 1849. source: Atlas National Illustré: Algérie, Colonie Française - Région du Sud, N°87, Géographie et Statistique par V.Levasseur, Ingénieur Géographe. Rue de Malte, 24. Illustré par A.M. Perrot attaché au Génie et Raymond Bonheur, peintre. Gravé par Laguillermie et Rainaud. Rue St. Jacques, 82. dieu et mon ass. Cliché Online (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you think they were unpopular, fine. Find a reliable source saying that, don't add your own feelings/opinions to the article. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Apostolic see and Paul's shipwreck

Is there not duplication in separate sections or repetition of one section? Could someone not cross-eye with fatigue look at this? Dlohcierekim 12:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's mentioned at the introduction, and separately as an historical event, and of religious significance. The information varies according to relevance. 193.188.47.23 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Member of the Nominated Council of Malta.

A search on the above text returns the names of several British officers who at some time (e.g. in the inter-war years) were appointed to this body. It is not mentioned in the article - perhaps it should be. --TraceyR (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"De facto capital"

Why is Valletta described as the "defacto" capital? It seems all or at least most gov't offices and all the key ones (parliment, PM's office, president's office etc) are located there. So why not just call it the capital?

Lenbrazil (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Urban Zone of Valletta?

In the 'introductory' paragraph at the top of the page it states that Valletta zone has a population of 365,000 people. As a resident of Malta and Geography graduate... I know that this is clearly incorrect. Please ammend this. Valletta had population of 6,315 in 2005. The Southern Harbour Region (ofwhich it is a part of) has a pop. of 81,107. Source: http://www.nso.gov.mt/docs/preliminary_report2005.pdf Valletta is in the SOuthern Harbour region —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.99.54 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not clearly incorrect. Malta island is conglomerate of towns, form one metropolitan area. Generally, Malta could be one large city while towns in current Malta could be districts of Malta city, like Singapore (country-city). Malta is even smaller than Malaga city (316 vs 395km2). But, reality is different and Malta at the losing. Malta island is conglomerate of towns, form one urban and metropolitan area. There are several sources, that provide information around 300,000. Eurostat is reliable source of information. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Eurostat nowhere states that Malta is a city state. Second, by your own admission, there are "towns" and which have separate identities (including political identities as local councils). Third, "Malta city" does not exist. Fourth, in the city state article, do you really believe any Parliament would declare the country a "city state"?

Demdem (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re. First: this is section "Urban Zone of Valletta?" According to Eurostat, Malta's urban zone has a population of 368,250 (majority of the population of the island). Re. Second and Third: nowhere says on Wikipedia about Malta is official city and country, the article says only (......) urban zone with a population of 368,250 (majority of the population of the island) according to Eurostat.[10] Therefore, Malta can be considered a city-state. Re. Fourth: enough that the parliament rename the town into districts. Singapur is official city-state. Why? Most likely because parliament officially announce as a city-state. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what Eurostat says is that there is a "Larger Urban Zone" which it designates as "Valletta" (not, as you say "Malta"). "Larger Urban Zone" is a larger unit that "City". There may be only one such "Larger Urban Zone" in the island of Malta but definitely not one "City" ergo Malta is not a city state.

And this "Larger Urban Zone" is still not the entire country or the entire population because there is another "Larger Urban Zone" (i.e. Gozo).

Finally, I don't know much about the Singaporean Parliament but it seems you don't, either; that "Most likely because parliament officially announce as a city-state" is hardly encyclopaediac. In any case, if the Maltese Parliament has "declared" anything is that Malta is made up of various cities, towns and hamlets.

Demdem (talk) 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, stop trolling, cling to the smallest detail. Yes, designates as "Valletta" (I have not written differently) but it does not matter, this is only name taken from the capital of Malta - Valletta. This Urban Zone has a majority of the population of the island. Another "Larger Urban Zone" (i.e. Gozo)? Gozo island (constructed similarly to Malta island) has 30,000 people, too small to be classified in scientific work by Eurostat and other sources. As for Singapore, in the articles on Wikipedia there are no connections Malta and Singapore, I wrote this only in the discussion. In any case, if the Maltese Parliament has "declared" anything is that Malta is made up of various cities, towns and hamlets? - no, then the law will also apply to the renaming Local councils to districts of Malta. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If they are "details" they are fundamental details. Shall we see what we agree on?

First, the island of Malta constitutes one Larger Urban Zone which Eurostat calls "Valletta" and which is larger than a city as per the same source.

Second, according to Eurostat, the island of Gozo constitutes a "city" (I erroneously said "Larger Urban Zone" in the previous post ... apologies for that). It is therefore not "too small to be classified in scientific work by Eurostat and other sources". Check out the source quoted itself: in drop-down menu 1 choose "City", select "spatial level" and from drop-down menu 3 you can select "Gozo". Further entries in the other fields and you have all the stats you would want for.

Even the other Eurostat source quoted shows two entities.

So how can two entities which are spatially separate lead you to conclude that Malta "can be considered a city-state"?

Demdem (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in Eurostat, Malta island and Gozo island are presented with separate data, it does not matter. Example, Los Angeles metropolitan area also named Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana [8]. Los Angeles (4,000,000) and Long Beach (492,682) and Santa Ana (355,662) is separate cities and are separately classified however, they form one metropolis (3rd in the world by Gross domestic product, see: List of cities by GDP). Almost always in the world, urban areas and metropolitan areas extends beyond the administrative limits and sometimes even the country and always made up of >some administrative units. It does not matter. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it matters a lot. First, because the Eurostat source is the only source quoted here. Not only does it not say that Malta is a city-state; it says that Malta is made up of a Larger Urban Zone and a city! Claiming that Malta is a city state is therefore speculation.

Second, by your own admission urban areas, metropoles are larger than cities and actually are made up of a number of cities. Same for the larger urban zone of Malta. The country cannot be considered a city state.

Demdem (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)