Talk:Maltese people

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

message: The point stated here about the "British Colony" thing is incorrect from a legal and political perspective, and something that the Maltese always resisted. The Maltese, who died by their thousands fighting Napoleon's revolutionary French forces, never asked fro Malta to become a "British Colony" but their representatives asked from day one to be allowed to govern their own internal affairs under British MILITARY PROTECTION in exchange for the military use of the island. Never was any sort of British ingerence in internal affairs or power over them asked for by the Maltese, was asked, and the idea that the Maltese asked to be a British COLONY is pure historical and legal gibberish promoted by those ignorant of Maltese historical and servile anglophiles with little national dignity.
Throughout all the period of British abused governance, the Maltese always and consistently asked for greater civil and national rights, self-determination and respect for their Latin and Italian ethnic and cultural patrimony which the British sought to eradicate after the Italian nation was being juridically united in the mid-19th. century. This can be verified through the British-commissioned Keenan report for example, issued in the 1880s circa which asked for the elimination of the centuries-old established Italian language, and the gradual removal of Italian and Sicilian terms from the Maltese language to make it a pure classical Arabic dialect.
British Colonial history in Malta, or rather its overwhelmingly negative side has been sidelined for political correctness sake.
Muslim or Arabic influences are a gross exaggeration. One cannot cast aside the identity of the people. The Maltese, like it or not, have in general an aversion for such influences, and Maltese nationalists didn't trust the British precisely because the latter wanted to promote the Arabic/Muslim idea in Malta. Accounts of racist attitudes towards the Maltese from the British are documented. The Maltese prior to British cultural manipulation had an Italian culture and this is still attested by those studying deeply Maltese ethnography and history in general.
Unfortunately the greatest cultural misdeed of the British has been to dupe the Maltese, particular the most uneducated classes, that anything Italian is foreign. Up to this day, bar some exceptions, those stricken with anglophilia are mostly from the uneducated lower classes. The reason for this is not merely a question of education or of appreciation of one's own culture. It arises from sociological and materialistic aspects. The British in fact, sought to employ only those who favoured them and the cultural policy of Anglicisation and de-Italianisation. This was even enacted through regolamentary/legislative measures in relation to civil employment as an example.
Regarding Muslim influences, I would only like to remind that throughout history Malta has fought a siege in 1429 circa against a force of 18,000 Saracens led by Kaid Ridavan, and a greater one comprised of around 45,000 Turkish and Saracen allies forces in 1565. Malta has also been termed Cattolicissima by the Popes, plus in the 1911 (or so) Catholic Encyclopedia it is highlighted that Malta had the greatest number of Catholic priestly and religious vocation in the whole world.
Plus, on a more personal note, associating a Maltese to an Arab or a Muslim, like it or not, is greatly offensive to a Maltese. In fact, when one is ugly in Malta it is often said "you look like an Arab". I'm not expressing value judgements here, just stating a social fact. 
Turning to an ethnic consideration, it is a fact that the greatest number of ethnic Maltese surname are of Siculo-Italian origings. The most common surname in Malta is in fact CAMILLERI. Other very common Maltese surnames of Italian origins are GRECH, SPITERI, ATTARD, DEBONO, BONELLO, VELLA, PORTELLI, et cetera. With other less common such as de Giorgio, de Gabriale, de Battista, de Marco, and many many others. Nowhere here I am saying that there are no historical Arabic and Islamic influences. But, saying Islamic influences is incorrect, since that is a religious influence which in Catholic Malta is inexistent. Arabic influence as an ethnic aspect, is definitely present, but it is minoritarian and has been given too much emphasis by manipulative British in their cultural policies, and not suprisingly by those who were under their sway, such as the Malta Labour Party (indicative is the fact that the party's official name is to this day in English) who was actually aided by the British and who even proposed integration with the UK. Of relevance is the fact that in the integration period, prominent nationalists were threatened with internment if they kept writing against integration or did not change their views. Dott. Giorgio Borg Olivier, the nationalist "father of Independent Malta" was even offered (an attempt to corrupt) a seat in the British parliament, a worthy residence in the UK and the best schooling for his kids payed by the UK government if he turned in favour of integration with the UK. He, God be praised, declined. This episode is according to Dott. Victor Ragonesi, a renowned Maltese nationalist, personal secretary to Dott. Giorgio Borg Olivier, and ever-present during the Independence negotiations.
And how convenient for the English is it to merely state that Malta became a British colony and then acquired independence. That is practically a history of 164 years kept silent. Why not mention the numerous promises never maintained, the ridiculous costitutional grants which were taken away at will by the British, the SETTE GIUGNO which till nowadays is still a national feast in Malta. For those that do not know what that is, it is a remembrance of when British troops shot dead a number of Maltese civilian protestors who were protesting against the numerous misdeeds of the British, including the raising of taxes which practically meant that the Maltese could barely by bread to eat! Why not mention the numerous political persecutions, the behind the scenes political manipulations which are documented et cetera.
I guess that is enough info for now. 
This information is not true
Obviously you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Filfla. Pretty much everything said is complete nonsense with no sources for any of this rubbish. The British were asked here to help get rid of Napolean, then the British were asked to stay on & keep a military presence in Malta, do you think that the British simply came here & said "Right Malta is ours now"?!? Negotiations took place with the leaders of both countries & it was decided amicably for Malta to come under British rule, perhaps if you read some history books you would find this out for yourself. Yes there were periods from both sides which were not great but that is consigned to the history books, do we to this day continue to chastise every German for what Hitler did? And those Italians you seem very fond of bombed Malta during WW2 by the way.. It is a fact that Malta wanted to become part of the United Kingdom & a referendum was held in which the majority of Maltese voted for this, but it is only for the inept actions of the then PM who made the UK re think & they were the ones who decided not to allow Malta to become part of the UK. It was after this that Malta wanted independence, which the country got with no resistance from Britain & not only did the country remain with the Queen as head of state until 1974 when the country became a republic, but Malta has remained to this day with very close ties to the UK.. By all means have your petty predjudices (although it would be better not to voice them) but at least get your facts right when you are going to re-tell history in your own creative way. Mela. 78.133.67.196 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: British Colony?

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

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

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

message: Okay, I'd like somebody to explain how exactly Maltese people are related to Arabs, apart from linguistically. Culturally? How? Genetically? How? One study that states that "more than half (50 %) of the Y chromosome lineages that are seen in today's Maltese population could have come in with the Phoenicians" proves absolutely nothing, I'm afraid. Marcus1234 11:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This study claims that English people have non-White blood. Other studies claim that British are pure Anglo-Saxon. Other studies claim that the British mostly originated from the Iberian peninsula. So my point is pretty evident: These DNA studies are far from accurate. I think we all agree that there are no accurate studies regarding the genetic composition of Maltese people at present (although we can assume from surnames; incidentally, Spanish [who you wrongly believe have nothing to do with Maltese people] surnames are quite common in Malta.
*That link is NOT a reliable source for anything and is total garbage compared to the soruce I used from National Geographic. NO studies claim that the people of Britain are "Iberian" in the modern context, only that they have descendants from Upper Paleolithic men who resided in an Iberian refuge (as wel las other regions) periodically during the last Ice Age. Look, I have never heard that Spanish surnames are as common in Malta as you claim and they have no record of settling Malta in significant numbers. A surname doesn't mean anything with regards to the composition of a population, especially when its only in a minority. The study I provided is a an accurate and reliable study and clearly shows a Maltese-Phoenician connectoin that supports historical information on Phoenician settlement. No other region outside of Lebanon (where most people acknolwedge they are descended from Phoenicians) has Phoenician Y-chromosome input as high as in Malta. Linguistically, Maltese is most similar to Tunisian Arabic and Tunisians also have significant ancestry from the Pheonicians. In terms of language, culture and ancestry, Maltese are definitely related to Lebanese and Tunisians. 69.157.107.88 11:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, culturally, please explain how Maltese people are related to Arabs, and provide a source if possible. Marcus1234 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: To be honest, I think we shouldn't add the "related ethnic groups" because there isn't enough evidence that shows to whom we are related - I think it's all a subjective matter anyway. The Greek people article also does not include a related ethnic groups section, probably because there is a debate surrounding the issue. Marcus1234 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You only provided one source; a dubious study performed by some amateur. It proves nothing. If this study was of any significance, it would have been mentioned in the news, newspapers etc, but it wasn't. And you still failed to explain how the Maltese are culturally Arabs - what about our culture is Arabic? Relgion? Politics? Music? Cuisine? Dress code? Entertainment? The truth is none of these are influenced by Arabs. None. I have been to Arabic countries and I must say I always felt wholly out of place there. Marcus1234 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The section is already there, but that study isn't enough to justify the inclusion of a "related ethnic groups" section, since, just like the Greek people article, there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue. You can't just lump in the Maltese with the Arabs simply because there might be some genetic linkage according to one study, just like you can't lump in the Greeks with the Turks or Sicilians and Spaniards with Berbers. Therefore, it best not be included - it's not important or essential anyway. Marcus1234 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a link to appropriate resources and still keep the 'non-inclusion'. So that the viewer is given the information, but it isn't deemed important on a large scale as incorporating it onto the actual page. --Fishyghost 19:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link and information is already there; the "Possible genetic links" section. Marcus1234 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha.. sorry, I wasn't looking. --Fishyghost 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Ethnic groups

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

message: Since you obviously take offence at being related to Arabs for some bizarre reason, how about I just exclude the Arab and Semitic classifications and use these groups that Maltese are most related to:
*Lebanese
*Tunisians
*Italians
69.157.107.88 12:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition 

message: While it is true that Maltese have strong similarities between semitic language, historical some cultural influences from Arabs, Maltese people are not Arabic. These cultural connections come from the times of the 1565 Siege when Ottoman Turks and Saracens attacked the islands. Middle Eastern culture is in fact intertwined in Maltese history, however Maltese people don’t quite fall under the “Arabic/Middle Eastern” umbrella of identification, as they draw even more similarities in culture from Italy and Spain. 
Due to Malta’s various country leaders, it’s people also tend to appear aesthetically from different countries completely as an ancestor may have procreated along a Spaniard or a Turkish person converted Maltese islander.
===Re: THE LAST POSTER IS OBVIOUSLY FROM THE USA===
Will you please specify who is "The Last Poster"? Tsum60 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, your (unsourced) opinions are worthless within the context of Wikipedia. Move along. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Arabic 

message: Will you please specify who is "The Last Poster"? Tsum60 09:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, your (unsourced) opinions are worthless within the context of Wikipedia. Move along. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: THE LAST POSTER IS OBVIOUSLY FROM THE USA

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

message: This part in the "genetics" is more to do with politics, and does not belong in that section.
:  By contrast, history books published during the Mintoff years following Independence began to question the earlier beliefs in a continuous, indigenous population of Christian Maltese and, in some cases, quietly promoted the theory of closer cultural and ethnic ties with North Africa.  This new development was noted by Boissevain in 1991:
...the Labour government broke off relations with NATO and sought links with the Arab world. After 900 years of being linked to Europe, Malta began to look southward. Muslims, still remembered in folklore for savage pirate attacks, were redefined as blood brothers.Jeremy Boissevain, "Ritual, Play, and Identity: Changing Patterns of Celebration in Maltese Villages," in Journal of Mediterranean Studies, Vol.1 (1), 1991:87-100 at 88.
:This latter development coincided with and reflected dramatic new (but short-lived) developments in Maltese foreign policy: Western media reported that Malta appeared to be turning its back on NATO, the United Kingdom, and Europe generally"Our Sad Adieu", in Time Magazine (Monday, Apr. 09, 1979).  Last viewed August 8, 2007.; Libya had loaned several million dollars to Malta to make up for the loss of rental income which followed the closure of British military bases in Malta;"Gaddafi to the Rescue", in Time Magazine (Monday, Jan. 17, 1972).  Last viewed August 8, 2007. Malta and Libya had entered into a Friendship and Cooperation Treaty, in response to repeated overtures by Gaddafi for a closer, more formal union between the two countries; and, for a brief period, Arabic had become a compulsory subject in Maltese secondary schools.Hanspeter Mattes, "Aspekte der libyschen Außeninvestitionspolitik 1972-1985 (Fallbeispiel Malta)," Mitteilungen des Deutschen Orient-Instituts, No. 26 (Hamburg: 1985), at 88-126; 142-161.
I don't see what this has to do with who the Maltese are, all it says is Libya gave them some money. If people from Germany gave Malta some money, that wouldn't make the Matlese genetically German either. Same as if China gave Malta money, it wouldn't make the Maltese suddenly asian. Politics and genetics need to be seperated. - The Daddy 19:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics?

message: This category is superfluous, and misleading.  I am a Maltese of primarily Italian heritage, and yet I take exception to the sweeping generalization that the Maltese, as a whole, are related to the Italians.  That is a gross over-simplification.  Some of the other related categories that have been proposed on this page in the past are just plain wrong.  Culturally, linguistically, yes, I agree that Malta has a strong Italian heritage (one that has been, sadly and wrongly, much maligned and sidelined since WWII).  And it is true that many Maltese are ethnically descended from Italians, but more so from Sicilians, plus there are significant influences from elsewhere around the Mediterranean littoral, such as Spain, Greece, France (as far north as Normandy), and North Africa.  It is also true that many modern Maltese have a British naval officer for a grandparent or great-grandparent.  Many more trace their origins to the Italian exiles who fled to Malta from Italy during the Risorgimento.  Some of the Sicilians who settled in Malta over the centuries may have been of Arab origin, others were ethnically Sicilian, but culturally "Arabicized".  Countless more were mainstream Sicilians in search of a better life.  But what is the true significance of all of this ancient history today?
Yes, for hundreds of years there were Arabs, Turks and Jewish people living in Malta, sometimes as part of the mainstream culture, sometimes as invaders, and sometimes, sadly, in slavery.  Many of their descendents are still among us, but so many generations later they are part of the "Maltese" family.  There are also several Indian families that settled in Malta during the British era; again, their descendants are today Maltese, and would likely self-identify as such.  The tired old debate over North African vs  Phoenician vs European heritage is a moot point, because for countless generations there have been people of Arab, Phoenician, Spanish, French, Italian and yes, even ancient Maltese heritage in the former North African colonies, and there are people of all these same nationalities, and more, throughout the rest of Southern Europe.  Maltese have settled and intermarried throughout the Mediterranean, including in Egypt, Gibraltar and Cyprus.  Some have returned to Malta, several generations ago.  Are these returned migrants and their descendants not Maltese?  Are they Egyptian?  Moreover, with the influx of many repatriated Maltese from the post-World War II diaspora around the western world, including Canada, the UK, the USA, and Australia, there are now ethnic influences from all over. 
If we must have this list of "related ethnic groups," where should it start, and where should it end?
Let's talk about the possible origins of the modern Maltese race, and its many, many complex influences over the centuries, but let's not generalize.  There is a great line in the film Mediterraneo, when the residents of a Greek island encounter the Italian invaders during WWII: "Una faccia, una razza".  Let's face it, that is the bottom line about ethnicity in the Mediterranean.  Moreover, why must Maltese people have this category, when other ethnic/national groups in Wikipedia do not, despite their equally turbulent history?  It's as though being "Maltese" is not significant enough in and of itself.
This tired old debate is not worthy of a nation that was first identified as a "nation" by its Spanish monarch in the 15th century.lamato(talk) 05:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related ethnic groups? 

message: Can anyone give me a definition of "Notable People" and provide examples?
Tsum60 19:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check out the Notability guideline for more information. However, if you are referring to the people in the picture, I do believe these should be more than merely "notable" as per wikipedia guidelines. Although there isn't a guideline regarding such, one can merely look at other articles related to ethnic groups and take example from them. I believe the picture should only include important historical figures rather than flavour of the month contemporary entertainers. Marcus1234 06:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I have recently being deeply researching the original tribes of the Sicilian peoples. The oldest tribe on Sicily is the Sicanians, who inhabited the island from atleast 8000 BC. It is known that Malta (and Gozo in particular) has been inhabited since around 5000 BC after people coming over from Sicily; there were two other Sicilian tribes; the Sicels who didn't get to Sicily until 1200 BC, so they cannot be the original Maltese people...
The other tribe was the Elymians, who didn't establish cities on Sicily until 1100 BC (when Malta was already inhabited) and they were located in the north west of the island. When you consider the location of the ancient Sicanians on Sicily, the time in which Malta was first inhabited by people from there and the location of Malta (especially Saint Lawrence, Gozo where the island was first inhabited), then it seems unlikely that it could be any other tribe. 
The Sicanians themselves were throught to have originally come from the Iberian Peninsula, likely Catalonia, so this could shed more light on who the Maltese people are. - Soprani 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The original Maltese people are likely Sicanians..

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

message: Any headway made yet? User:89.243.57.7 is a ripe example. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so I'm apparently now Yolgnu *sighs*, despite the fact I live in a separate continent. Nonetheless, may I point out that Kalindoscopy is trying to introduce the propaganda of the Maltese people being a continuous "northern italian, catholic race", as fact. I am sorry, but this is not acceptable, and not true by any measure. I think page protection may be in order. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Utter nonsense. Stop drawing conclusions out of the air.. changing 'propaganda' to 'account' in no way invalidates the INFORMATION within the paragraphs following the introduction. People do read the things (one would hope so..). I find your immediate assumption that this is all somehow racial very distasteful. It's this kind of blind obsession that weakens the project. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having dealt with your utterly annoying and time-consuming irritance before, I suggest others take a look at Kalindoscopy's history. He has continually been trying to strengthen Italian presence in its language, people, and culture. He has been blocked extensively, and has a history of wikistalking and causing trouble wherever he goes. I am getting tired of this now. The theories were propaganda spread by the ruling powers of the time - there is no debate about that. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assured of your identity: it was I who accused you of wikistalking, after all. As to pushing a pro-italian agenda.. meh. If anything at all, I'd push the pro-british garbage (coz London rulez). My changes and opinions re language/culture of Malta are, I think, fair and entirely accepting of our Semitic heritage. You don't understand where I'm coming from because I want to make honest changes to Wikipedia, not embittered ones. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hopefully that'll help and things will be sorted. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting rid of IP sockpuppets

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

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

message: Maltese speak a Semitic language and should therefore be included, they are included but 2 Wikipedia users have decided to remove it, genetically, Maltese are as European as Ashkenazi Jews, and Ashkenazi Jews are also included in the Semitic topic, geographically neither live in the near east (Ashkenazis have started coming with the rise of Zionism but historically lived mainly in eastern Europe), so either both remain or both be removed. Guy355 (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So by this logic Jamaicans should be classified as Indo-Europeans. Hagar90 (talk) 1:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Maltese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nso.gov.mt/statdoc/document_file.aspx?id=3424
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220031047/http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/.../dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm... to http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/.../dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm...
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macmillandictionary.com/MED-magazine/February2005/27-LI-Maltese.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617032129/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls to http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/23/34792376.xls
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/melitahistorica/index1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Maltese people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060919160121/http://www.ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/mal_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/languages/langmin/euromosaic/mal_en.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070128095746/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: DNA tests do not prove that two unrelated nations are "related". They prove that the unrelated nations have MIXED. The whole world is mixed and no pure nation exists. Romance Romanians and Slavic Bulgarians are largely shown to have similar genetic codes. Finns an Hungarians are said to have their neighbours' DNA. But to be speaking Finno-Ugric languages, it simply means that the Germanic/Slavic people etc. to intermarry with Hungarians and Finns etc. assimilated in the process. Bottom line: Arabs went to Malta, and history has never recorded Arabs ever leaving Malta either in whole or in part. To that end, the modern Maltese have a pedigree in the Arabs. The culture brought by the nations who would become assimilated by the pre-existing Maltese nation does not depend on the nations mixing; one can acquire an influence without mixing. So the Maltese are only as Italian as the Balkan Slavs and Greek are Turkic. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I make a proposal here. I know what you're saying and you're totally correct. DNA is sketchy and if the test results of a select number of people held any merit then the first thing big nations would learn is that people from one region are "unrelated" to their ethnic affiliates in another. It's just that I personally have had similar discussions on other articles and the best thing both times - tried and true - was the full removal of this segment. I refer to Azerbaijanis and Czechs where both times I argued against editors who suddenly believed these were related to unrelated nations based on centuries of intermarrying. With regards Italians, note that the claim that Italian people and Greeks are commonly descended is not reciprocated on the Greeks article (which it should be if true), just as the Greeks article also dispenses with a "related people" section. Some time ago I was planning to create a discussion on whether it would be best to remove this part altogether, or simply tweak it so we can have "associated nations" in which case it would be fine to add modern nations whose forerunners mixed, as well as linguistic ancestors except where a Pidgin development has been forced on an enslaved people. Does this sound a good solution? --Juicy Oranges (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: JO I will support your idea and thanks for the positive outlook. At the moment I'm in conflict with one user with a pro-Italian agenda to whom DNA and ethnogenesis are being used as weaponry to claim Maltese people AND Greeks (at the Italians article) are related to Italians. "Related" means having a common ancestor and if this is correct in the case of Maltese people, we don't need a source to show how dominant the Italian gene is in the blood of Maltese people, we need a source showing that the Maltese are a hybrid due to every Maltese person having Italian blood in him, and that's an impossible ask. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely explained Fut.Perf., so thanks for the input. Based on this above rationale alone I am confident wider consensus is realistically achievable and so if Juicy Oranges wishes to begin the discussion at the relevant project (or create one) then I'll follow his contributions and make my points IN SUPPORT of the removal of the "related people" entry of the infobox. On this very note, I'll now refrain from touching the Italians and Maltese people articles, effectively leaving the other editors to do as they please; the outcome on how we move forward or obtain consensus will come about in time I am sure. --Edin Balgarin (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  DNA theory 

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

message: somehow all arabs were expelled, and replaced with italians and spaniards replaced all semitic people yet we somehow have the maltese language and it seems to imply we are basically intruders, that romance people came first then arabs came back. as a maltese person i am worried that the source may be trying to push a certain narrative and i think it should be investigated Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The history just doesn't add up and feels inaccurate with the language