Talk:Maltese nobility

message: Is there an independent reference to indicate there was a British Colonial Royal Commission? I think this article needs some authoritative referencing.
Referring to something as "the" Royal Commission suggests it was a specific organisation. I'd suggest "a Royal Commission" -- isn't a royal commission a commission of inquiry into a particular issue anyway? So, there can be, for example, the Royal Commission into Titles for Maltese Nobles and so on, but no single body called the Royal Commission.
Are there any references to this particular royal commission online?  Ampersand77 (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adjusted links

message: (Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caerwine (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Acknowledgement

message: I've cleaned up the language, added some wikilinks, deleted many others to AfDed/prodded articles.  I also struck out references to the Commission for Privileges, seeing as it's a private club without any official connection seeking to "rule" on titles that were abolished by the Maltese government decades ago.
I also struck out the section on those titles not allowed by the 19th century British Royal Commission.  One would imagine that the only reason they weren't allowed was that they were spurious, and as such, have no place here.    RGTraynor  13:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, I'm afraid. They were excluded for purely political reasons. Nobody has an agenda quite like the British. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you have a reliable source for that, I assume?   RGTraynor  10:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree that the comment is not only disrespectful, but intensely ignorant. I would question the editors ability to work in a spirit of cooperation and intelligence on this project with these sorts of attitudes. What a pitiful display - I hope it can be explained (though in no way excused) by youthful immaturity, or a lack of education. In either case, please refrain from such racist comments in future, and do some reading. History is a wonderful subject. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically, he suggested you to find some sources? Might have been a littly  pointy, but find some, or get over it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: So, you're supporting this kind of attitude? Thanks for contributing.  Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw and still see nothing racist in the comments above. Get a reliable source for you additions, or don't edit the article. Thems the rules, nothing racist about it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This explains a lot - and I haven't made any factual additions, and don't intend to. I object to a facile and glib characterisation from somebody who doesn't seem to understand the issues. I appreciate that Wikipedia festers with dilettantism, but that doesn't make it any better. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a collaborative project, with rules, including WP:AGF, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and quit a few others. You're the one accusing another user of racism and failing to provide reliable sources for the material you wish to introduce into the article. Consensus or not, reliable sources is one of the core policys of the project. Facile and glib it is not. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Facile and glib is in reference to the editors comments regarding Malta and the Maltese nobility, specifically It'd also be interesting to know why the British bothered at all, instead of dismissing the whole business as gimcrackery from a tiny island with a contemporaneous population similar to Southwark. Again, I'm not introducing anything into the article - I'm disputing the deletion of information without any real valid reasoning. Please have some idea about the background to the article/situation before hazarding an opinion. Surely that's common practice (it's bare civility if nothing more). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have quite a bit of background on it, having had a hand in on these articles for a couple of years now ... a year and a half before you started an involvement with Wikipedia, come to that.  What's yours?  That being said, I didn't accuse anyone of "racism" for claiming that the British were out to get Malta for "purely political reasons." "Nobody has an agenda quite like the British."  Those were your words, and I doubt a British citizen would consider you to be following common practice and civility policies in saying so ... he might, however, consider your remarks facile and glib, if not outright racist.  As far as that goes ... the population of Malta in the 19th century was, in fact, smaller than many contemporaneous districts of London, and the entire country would fit comfortably within the municipal bounds of Plymouth, Massachusetts, while we're fielding comments about how primitive Americans are.   RGTraynor  03:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I never said a word about the primitive nature (or otherwise) of Americans during any period. I do however realise that you are unable to see your own guilt, and are stuck in a mire of pride. This is a grievance, and must be difficult for you. Hopefully you'll rectify the situation before it causes you greater damage in the "real world" - and since this article is such a shoddy work to begin with, I think most interested readers will be convinced of the need for a real look at books on the subject, and not be content with this page (if you've spent over a year on it and this is all you've achieved, I'll assume you've been very busy elsewhere). My comments were provocative, perhaps, in relation to a specific colonial mentality - yours were of the lowest caliber, and the fact you fail to acknowledge this (at least publicly) is a great shame. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Also... you seem to equate 'size' with civilisation. I'm sure you know what Freud might have thought on that front. Quality over quantity, and be happy with what you've got!) Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oddly enough, I agree with you that this article is a shoddy piece of work, but then again I neither created it nor have added to it, and would be perfectly happy for the deletion process to overtake it.  Anything else I have to say to you is not pertinent to this article and best left to your talk page.   RGTraynor  08:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from leaving comments on my talkpage - I will not be insulted by you. If you are unable to understand my points, I suggest re-reading the comments above. Thank you. Also - you're happy for it to be deleted, yet consensus has approved its inclusion; what does this say about your attitude towards cooperative measures? And towards this article you've assumed control over, if your ultimate aim is its deletion? I hope you don't spread this attitude to other articles. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: * And done.  I won't be reverting further on the article, pending administrative action.   RGTraynor  10:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're inability to apologise for your statements says more about you than anything else you've posted here. What a deplorable shame. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your tenth block, for edit warring and a pattern of incivility, says all that's necessary about you.  That being said, time to move on.   RGTraynor  12:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: ... let's turn some thought to the future of this article.  It's never had proper sourcing, it's been a magnet for COI, sockpuppetry and controversy far out of proportion to the subject matter, it's largely orphaned beyond redirects, it hasn't been genuinely improved in six years, Malta's by far the smallest country in Europe to have such an article, titles were abolished in the Republic nearly forty years ago, and I'm minded to prod it.  I'm not even sure that anything should be folded into the main article, beyond a mention in the History of Malta article involving the transition from a monarchy to a republic about the abolition of noble titles.  I'm not opposed to improving the article, but we've been hearing songs and dances about improving the numerous articles concerning Maltese aristocracy for several years now, and any such improvements must be based on reliable sources available to Wikipedia editors, they must conform with WP:UNDUE, and they must take place immediately.  Thoughts, folks?   RGTraynor  13:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd support an AFD. Been here long enough and i'm convinced can't be established as a topic on its own. If this or that notable person from malta has a title and is deserving of an article, it will be covered there.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking a simple redirect to either the main Malta article or to History of Malta.  I'm unsure an AfD would succeed, and am not completely sold that it'd be appropriate.   RGTraynor  08:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that that's done with ... 

message: The Gauci source is deeply suspect.  Gauci was the original creator of dozens of dubious articles on purported noble Maltese titles on Wikipedia, among others claiming some for himself, his parents and his family.  After a fairly epic business spanning a couple years (and the use of several sockpuppets on his part), he was community banned from Wikipedia, his websites spam-blacklisted, and almost all of his article creations stricken.  He has a long history of claiming to be a genealogy/heraldic expert, but as was said in a RfC fifteen years ago, we've only his word for it, and his reaction to being asked for reliable, independent sources for anything was always either "How dare you question me?" or accusations of animus towards the nation of Malta.More recently, he's unilaterally claimed to be the "Chief Herald of Malta"  , and has been repudiated by the Committee of Privileges of The Maltese Nobility, the quasi-official body governing such things.  When all is said and done, he's just not a trustworthy source.   Ravenswing      18:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious source