Talk:Maltese dog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction[edit]

The article has had for some time a tag (This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points). I worked in providing it with an introduction, so I guess the tag can go now. Also, the previous lead didn't make much sense: "Despite the name, it has no verified historic or scientific connection to the island of Malta": well, it has been claimed to come from the island of Malta since Strabo 2000 years ago, and has been reported through the centuries to have been bred there, so it does have a historic connection to the island - by the way the introduction was written, it seemed like the breed name was just a coincidental homonym and not actually the same word as the one meaning "relating to Malta", which is not the case. It would make more sense to have something more in line with [Britannica], which states in its introduction that it is named for the island of Malta, where it may have originated. Dan Palraz (talk)

Well, that's your theory; people have been disagreeing about this for 2000 years. According to the Busuttil paper (ref #11 as I write), what Strabo actually said was along the lines of "... before Pachynus there lies Melite from where the Melitaean dogs came"; plenty of other Classical writers thought they were from the Adriatic. If there's a verifiable, factual scientific or historic connection to the island of Malta, please cite the peer-reviewed historic or scientific journals where that finding is reported and discussed. Once that's done, we'd need to find some scientific or historic connection between the lapdog of the Ancient World and the modern lapdog, which appears to have a documented history of no more than about 150 years at a pinch. Whatever else, I think we should keep speculation about any of this out of the lead. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are two different things: one thing is the discussion about what island was the Melita that the Greek name of the dog referred to; the English name, however, comes undoubtedly from the island of Malta, even if it might be a misnomer, and, regardless of its factual correction, the fact is that because of the English name, the island has been associated with the breed ever since, and they have even bred the dog there, so saying that it has no "proven historical connection" to the island is misleading. If you really prefer a short introduction, then no mention is needed in the lead of the name origin at all. Dan Palraz (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
You've had almost 11 months to argue, counter-argument, discuss or try to find a lead that is acceptable to all. If you don't want to compromise on a consensual phrase, the controversial phrase will not be in the lead, as it is not needed there. Dan Palraz (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The3 article has some useful information but is generally a mess, in terms of formatting, architecture and the placing of details. The lead, as Dan states, is incorrect. There are several sources that should not be there: history books about the geography of the Mediterranean printed in 1828 have no place here, nor do conjectures about Maltese dog origins cited from books dated to the 19th century. The article must distinguish between two sets of data: the modern breed, to which the name is attached, and the ancient evidence for a similar type of dog, associated generally with Malta with some marginal dissent that the island of origin may be another with a similar name. The genetics of breed dogs are such that they don't allow direct genealogy from anything earlier than a century or so ago. I will review it, using a standard ref format. I.e. after decades of tinkering, this has to be overhauled and wikified according to best practice to iron out numerous sloppy incongruencies.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Nishidani, the page certainly needs considerable work; however, a position that a dispute that has lasted 2000 years is "some marginal dissent" may perhaps not be the best point to start from. I'm no classicist, but I'm a little perplexed by your assertion that "Melitaios always refers in classical Greek to Malta, and never to an Adriatic island, Mljet". When Pliny wrote this, what text of Callimachus was he citing? What word for Mljet did Callimachus use that Pliny translates as 'melitaeos'? Also, would you kindly link to the actual text of the Aristotle mention rather than our page on the book? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been busy drinking at a 4 hour foodfeast to celebrate a niece's confirmation yesterday, and haven't had time to finish. Far from it. What I intend to do is line up all the classical sources in Greek and Latin and cite the commentaries' verdicts. Most of the page evidence came from 19th century texts citing the same material, recycling some secondary text, which however misses much, and ignores the verdicts of modern scholarship. For example I think Lycophron's Alexandra, is not mentioned here for Melita (Μελίτη/Melítê). There too, as with Callimachus, there has been some discussion as to whether he referred to Malta or Mlit, but, the finest and most recent edition of that extraordinary poem, by Simon Hornblower, is unequivocal. The full textual context (ll.1027ff) leaves no doubt that, despite the usual ambiguities (name doubling for islands is common reflecting perhaps emigration patterns), In those cases, one goes ad fontes and to the latest scholarship, all of which is ignored by the secondary paste-and-copy remarks by people who certainly have an intimate knowledge of dog breeds, but not of classical scholarship. I'll clarify the Pliny reference, since I have Rudolf Pfeiffer's definitive edition of Callimachus and his fragments (It's clarified in vol.1 1949 p.404). Pliny's latin is the source of the attribution to Callimachus, whose original however has not been transmitted. Callimachus, like Lycophron, excelled in making allusions to obscure, uncommon knowledge that contradicts much received lore. By classical Greek, I am referring to the high Athenian heyday of usage down to Aristotle's time. But I must get rid of a hangover before fixing this.Nishidani (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrigenda[edit]

this revert states that the old lead has to be restored because the page deals with the modern Maltese breed, Well, patently untrue, When I glanced at it, most of the page was dedicated to some ostensible 'history' regarding ancient writers' views on the 'Maltese dog'.

Worst still, the evidence from ancient sources was unbelievably slipshod, messy, ragged, with unreliable secondary sources, even including dated Latin books or generic commentaries on Mediterranean going back centuries. There was, indeed, very little on the modern Maltese breed, and the page seemed polemically designed to undercut the opinion that Malta had anything to do with the modern variety. That is a contradiction. Why assert that the page is about the modern breed, and get spill so much virtual ink on classical references to a 'Maltese lap-dog'.

As a neutral editor, the answer was clear. The term 'Maltese dog', whatever its ancient topological denotation, has absor5bed earlier editors, so one corrects that by using the best contemporary classical scholarship to put some order into the citational mess and errant opinionizing about Martial, Pliny, Strabo et al., the earlier version provided. So the lead must cover both bases: (a) the term 'Maltese dog' in classical sources and (b) the distinct modern breed.

What is annoying is that, I assume, editors familiar with the modern breed have added almost nothing of value, sparse details, on the modern breed, but are very much engaged in trying to twist the ancient evidence to undercut any possible association of the earlier species known by the same name as related. Well, of course they are not known to be related. But the term has a continuity between antiquity and modern times, and therefore the page must cover both, and clarify the confusion.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Problems[reply]

  • We use an article written by Chelsey Parrott-Sheffer,Maltese Encyclopedia Britannica-

The authoress wrote formerly 30 articles for the EB. Her link in profile says she is ‘Experienced Talent Development professional and certified executive coach with 12 years of experience working in the legal industry.’ The online EC is not a reliable source, esp. when the article happens to be written by a non-expert, who here asserts the probability of a highly contested view.'breed of toy dog named for the island of Malta, where it may have originated about 2,800 years ago.' Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that editors should not pick and choose bits and pieces from a grabbag of sources without discrimination, esp. when they contradict each other, as here.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

There's been a formal objection to my adoption of a particular citational style in my overhaul of this article. I didn't think this important at the time, since this objection, and revert justification, has only emerged once, i.e. here, in the 900 articles which I have rewritten or created with software format Neil developed. People have of course raised occasional objections, but not to my format choice. But since Nableezy, - a redoubtable formalist, and stickler for the fine reading of policy, has wigged me on precisely this point - will be tempted seize the opportunity finally to cap his wiki ambitions by exploiting this oversight to take me to AE for a permaban, thereby proving he can, as often, succeed where a cast of hundreds have failed for two decades, I'll take the wigging seriously and go through the standard procedure.:)

  • The page before my editing had several citational templates. There was no consensus.
  • There were three reasons for my adoption of this style: Aesthetic effect: it's neat. (b) the possibility of adding notes for details that, though required, are philological or informative clarifications best hidden from the main text in footnotes to allow the reader to ignore them in reading, except if curiosity is spurred to verify the origins of information which most of the given sources fail to secure. It is a blight on this page that we have several texts citing a putative history of 'Maltese dogs' in classical sources, secondary texts written by dog lovers for dog lovers where patently these writers are people unfamiliar with the selfsame classical studies. Effectively we have meme reduplication between non-specialist sources, all drawing on positions that reflect, at best, ideas circulating loosely over a century ago
  • For the record (bona fides) I did begin by using my preferred style for the new sources I began introducing while leaving most of the others in the format I found on the page. The result was a visual mess caused by something in the software that produced messages of template conflicts. Of course, technically I'm a moronic hack, and so, my solution was to redraft all using one sinhle template, with its virtue of citational uniformity.
  • I'm no particularly worried about whatever citational form is eventually chosen, suffice it that the page, once reviewed thoroughly, adopt a single format. Once I'v finished the sadsack revision grind, with the format that enables me at least to rewrite the page efficiently, consensus will determine if it is then necessary to rework it with another model.

So I'd appreciate input on this. What are the objections to this format? Should we stick with the old page and its various conflicting templates or aspire to uniformity? etc.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics[edit]

In the Characteristics, it explains on the weight and height, but believe there is misinformation? Here is what I mean Adult weight is usually 3–4 kg (7–9 lb). Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more. It's the Bitches are about 20–23 cm (8–9 in) tall, dogs slightly more. What are "bitches" in this context? I refuse to believe this breed has an demonym being "bitchs". (120.17.191.141 (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

It’s the standard in English for referring to female dogs, generically. This isn’t a matter of opinion or what you choose to believe. 176.80.136.148 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different types of Maltese dogs breeds[edit]

Maltipoo's are a Maltese and Poodle mix that are highly intelligent. I am new to Wikipedia editing but I own a Maltipoo and am very excited to share my knowledge. Davnee09 (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]