Talk:Chaldean Catholics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Import

I've imported the Cathenc article and removed the more blatant Catholic-centrisms. Not sure whether this should be merged into Chaldean Catholic Church. dab (𒁳)08:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignored in Demography of Iraq

Somehow, they had gotten elided from the article. Dogru144 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

they belong to "Assyrian, Iraqi Turkmen or other 5%", and under "religion" to "Christian or other 3%". Their language is in fact listed, as Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. They are also mentioned on Image:Iraq demography.jpg, as making up part of the purple dots in the north. They account for probably about 1% of Iraqi population. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

merge proposal

merging this into Assyrian culture would result in giving the Chaldean community far too much weight in that article. Bad idea. Rather, insert a short summary of this article over there. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. The Chaldo-Assyrians need an article of their own, for some Chaldeans out there to understand their history. This is not a culture topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:31 18 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

it would be like merging, say, Roman Catholicism in Germany into German folklore. dab (𒁳) 07:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like that, yeah. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:00 29 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this biased?

There are some Chaldeans who do not call themselves Assyrian, and feel quite strongly that they are not Assyrian. Isn't this article biased if it just exhibits the point of view of Chaldeans who call themselves Assyrian? After all, the term Assyro-Chaldean is used in Iraq to mean 'Assyrians and Chaldeans'. — Gareth Hughes 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all biased. I'm aware of the fact, that there are Chaldeans who dislike the Assyrian identity. But, their opinions, do not count; after all, this is not ad populum. Their opinions are based on personal feelings, not historical accuracy; they're into pathos, not logos. It's the same thing with many Syriacs in the Syriac Orthodox Church; they see themselves as Aramaeans. Do you know why? Because that's what their priests tell them. We are not interested in religious propaganda and/or church identities; we're after historical accuracy. Surely Gareth, you don't regard these Chaldeans as some kind of Neo-Babylonians, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:37 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid 'their opinions do not count' confirms my suspicions: you are giving your own point of view as fact and denegrating that of others. If this is not bias, I don't know what is. To be fair, this article should mention that some Chaldeans do not call themselves Assyrian. Even your own websites say that this is the case. This is a fact. It should be mentioned in the article. As for Neo-Babylonians, I think it's as bunk as any other claim to be a long-lost ancient people. — Gareth Hughes 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, we can mention that some Chaldeans do not consider themselves to be Assyrians; that's NPOV after all. But, whatever their opinion is on this, they are ethnic Assyrians originally. Just because you change to a new Church, and this new Church is trying to create some new identity, it doesn't mean it's an entirely different people all of a sudden. By the way, many Chaldeans in Iraq are doing away with this ridiculous "Chaldean" pseudo-identity. They now see themselves as ethnic Assyrians. Though of course, being the case that many Chaldeans and Syriacs are uneducated about their own past, and only have priests to listen to, they are confused. After all, the Chaldean priests don't want to lose them over to the Syriac priests, and vice versa. But this article, must be historically accurate either way. We Assyrians have facts, history, and modern research and science on our side. The Syriacs and the Chaldeans, have their priests as their main backup. Go figure. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:57 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

How about having an article about the history of the Chaldean church and how it came about? Because thats what this article seems to be. Chaldean 16:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We already have that: Chaldean Catholic Church. This article, should focus on the Chaldean Assyrian people. Just like for instance, Ashkenazi Jews is concentrated on a specific Jewish ethnic group, same thing should be applied here. If it touches our history as Chaldean Catholics, and our Chaldean Church of Babylon, fine. Case in point however, is that it should narrowly focus on the Chaldean Catholic group. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:10 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

As for Neo-Babylonians, I think it's as bunk as any other claim to be a long-lost ancient people. — Then why are you defending their revisionist views of being something other than Assyrians? You do realise, their resentment of being Assyrians, and their assertions of being "Aramaeans" and "Chaldeans", is simply, as you eloquently put it, bunk. They are just as much Aramaeans/Chaldeans as my asshole is. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:20 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

EliasAlucard, if some Chaldeans do not consider themselves Assyrians, this should be duly noted. Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about attributable opinion. It really doesn't matter how you feel about the question, it is our job to document all sides of the question. Obviously, they will still qualify as Assyrians linguistically, as long as they speak an Aramaic dialect. Ethnicity is, after all, a social construct. It doesn't matter if they "were Assyrians originally" if they aren't today, they still aren't. Ethnicity is not some immutable constant but changes over time. I have no idea why both sides feel so strongly about the question, since it's just about a label. To any uninvolved spectator, Assyrian or not is a very arbitrary matter of opinion or self-identification. Maybe they have undergone ethnogenesis in the past five centuries and now qualify as a separate ethnicity, that's really in the eye of the beholder, and not about "fact".dab (𒁳) 21:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I duly noted it here. Look, the reason why they don't see themselves as Assyrians any longer, is because that's what they have been told to believe. Believe me, I'm not making this up. I should know, because I was spoon-fed with the same lies. Either way, there are lots of Chaldeans and Syriacs, who still stick to historical facts. These self-hating Assyrians, are deluded idiots. Really. It's like some ethnic German, who all of a sudden decides that he's not German any longer, and lots of ethnic Germans begin listening to him. What? Does that make it so? Yes, ethnicity is a social construct. But it's a lot more than that. And there are lots of Assyrian nationalists in Iraq, who are Chaldean Catholics. Please, understand, the Assyrian nation is in a mess right now, since we have been stateless and separated because of different rivalling Churches; priests hating the other sides' version of Christianity more than they care about our people. There are some Syriacs here in Sweden, who want religious leadership, whilst there are Syriacs who want a secular leadership. That's why they claim to be "Aramaeans". It's all bullshit, believe me. You shouldn't take the Aramaean-wannabe Syriacs too seriously. They're full of POV lies. They claim that they're the only Aramaic speaking people today, and that the Chaldeans and Nestorians don't speak Aramaic (this claim, is based on the fact, that the Aramaic dialects are different, and not mutually intelligible, as a result of having developed in wide distances). At the same time, there are other Syriacs, who claim that every one who speaks Aramaic is an Aramaean. WTF? They also claim that Jesus was an Aramaean.[1] That's the only reason why they want to be Aramaeans. Not because they are, but because they have developed into sectarian thinking and they want to feel closer to Jesus by pretending that they're Aramaeans and that he was, allegedly, an Aramaean. Seriously, their opinions do not count. Here on Wikipedia, we go preferably after scholarly sources, and it should be academic. Some confused dipshits wanting to be Aramaeans or Chaldeans, and their opinions, do not count. They are not historians. The biggest irony of it all, is that they suck at getting rid of their Assyrian identity. In Sweden, the Aramaean-wannabe Syriacs call themselves Syrianer. You make the call, what they are. Hint: Assyrian. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:03 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

No, they haven't gone through an ethnogenesis at all. I know Chaldeans and Assyrians and Syriacs, who all look like each other. It's the same people, really. It's just our different Churches who hate each other and keeping us apart from each other, through indoctrination. Believe me, I'm completely NPOV when I say that. The Maronites, however, originally, Assyrians, have gone through an ethnogenesis, and they're no longer 'pure Assyrians', though they have some Assyrian ancestry. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:11 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Also, lots of Chaldeans/Assyrians/Syriacs marry each other. I myself, for instance, is an example of that. Many in my family, have Syriac and/or Chaldean parents. It's decided by which Church the child is baptised in, usually, after the father's side. It's the same people, really. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:44 30 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

whatever, Elias -- this is an emotional question, I don't think there's an objective answer to it. We should just be happy to state everybody's opinion about it as usual. dab (𒁳) 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm doing. I just don't like lies and revisionist traitors amongst my own people. I'm sure you'd feel the same. However, this is not a matter of opinions. It's a matter of facts. And the facts say, they are Assyrians. Believe me, as a proud Assyrian, I wouldn't want 'true Chaldeans' around me, considering that the ancient Chaldeans destroyed the Assyrian empire. That said, if they were Chaldeans, I would hate their guts and refuse to acknowledge them as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:14 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

While not all Chaldean Catholics consider themselves Assyrian, it goes without saying that all Chaldeans consider themselves Suraya (Syrian). And we all know where that is derivided from. Chaldean 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what's so funny about it. It's like someone who's doing his damnedest to deny his past, yet his identity is written all over his face. Try again, stupid. — EliasAlucard|Talk 04:28 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

guys, these are just names. We are talking about modern ethnic groups, this has nothing to do with ancient Assyrians or Chaldeans, that's just national mysticism. Do wake up and stop living in the Bronze Age. dab (𒁳) 13:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More Godwin's law retorts? More Nazi comparisons? So what are we now, Indo-Europeans? Are we not descendants of ancient Mesopotamia? I guess not, Dbachmann thinks it's antiquity frenzy. Thanks for stating that we have no origin, and that we are a rootless people. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:06 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the look of an argument based on natural right. This article may not be as obviously biased as Syriac Assyrians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), but it is part of the same project to create a set of pages that whitewash over the reality of a fragmented group. Those who don't want to be part of the Assyrian identity are labelled 'traitors' and 'liars'. The use of these two words clearly demonstrates the article creators biased intent. If this page is an article, it should be about the actual use of the term, or 'Chaldo-Assyrian/Assyro-Cahldean' as an inclusive label for Chaldeans and Assyrians, rather than an exclusive term as used here. Of course, Wikipedia should reflect the facts and report the opinion, and not turn the latter into the former. That's the problem with a lot of the Assyrian stuff on Wikipedia. Now, what are we going to do with this biased article? — Gareth Hughes 17:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More anti-Assyrian sentiments. Look, I'm not biased, for sticking to facts. Garzo, have you ever spoken with a Syriac, who believes he's an Aramaean? You obviously have. Did you ask them, on what grounds they base this Aramaean assertion of theirs? They will answer you, "my priest told me so". No offence, I know you're a priest Garzo, but that's not enough. The Aramaean wannabe Syriacs, seriously believe we are a completely different people, when in actual reality, we aren't. If anyone is biased here, then it's the Aramaean and Chaldean wannabes. Yes, I label them as traitors and liars, for disregarding their forefathers. I call a spade a spade. Why are you always working against me, on Assyrian related articles? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:21 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

It may be just me, but I find it hilarious to read "I'm not biased" from the editor who just stated "Believe me, as a proud Assyrian, I wouldn't want 'true Chaldeans' around me, considering that the ancient Chaldeans destroyed the Assyrian empire. That said, if they were Chaldeans, I would hate their guts and refuse to acknowledge them as Assyrians." -- If you hate anyone's guts for this or that turn of luck in Iron Age politics, you clearly need a reality check, my patriotic friend. dab (𒁳) 20:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote, if they were. They're not. No, I'm not biased. These Syriacs and Chaldeans who believe they're not Assyrians, don't know our history. They have been raised as Chaldeans and Aramaeans. Ask them the difference between Orthodox and Catholicism or whatever, and they'll stare at you clueless. It's also interesting that Garzo doesn't believe they're Neo-Babylonians, yet he keeps defending this loose connection with the ancient Chaldean people. Why? I don't get it. Is this some sort of divide and rule mentality? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:40 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is a "Nazi comparison" when I point out that you are clearly wound up in national mysticism. Sadly, the Nazis were not the only party in history prone to such fallacies. Everyone has "roots", give us a break. Every organism walking this earth has a line of ancestors reaching back into the paleozoic, what's so special about that? That you fancy to call yourselves after Bronze Age polities is still Romanticism by any other name. dab (𒁳) 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are you opposed to us calling ourselves Assyrians, based on that rationale? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:40 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I do not care at all what you (and that's a singular you, directed at everyone individually) call yourself. As long as you don't go around objecting to other people calling themselves whatever they like, and with the understanding that such self-identifications are basically arbitrary. It's when you begin to claim that you "are" somehow identical to a certain people of 1000 BC that things get problematic. You are free to call yourself after anyone you like. dab (𒁳) 21:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How is that problematic? DNA tests confirm that Nestorian Assyrians, Syriac Assyrians, and Chaldean Assyrians, have a unique DNA profile. Add to that, that we speak Aramaic, and that we are a Semitic people. Look, I can see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to belittle me with this "national mysticism" stuff, and by doing that, trying to lower my credibility and calling me biased and whatever. It's just ad hominem. Both you and Garzo are engaging in this. Why can't you accept, that they are Assyrians? Sure, we have some Chaldeans and some Syriacs, who disregard their Assyrian heritage. Though far from all do that, we do have some amongst us that do. As for you calling me biased and "national mysticism", what makes you Mr. objective, considering your looooong history of anti-nationalism edits here on Wikipedia? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:41 01 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias seems to insist that only his voice be heard, and that the identities of Syriacs and Aramaeans are somehow less than his own. It's nice to be labelled an anti-Assyrianist once again. I'm actually quite rational and not personally involved in all this. I support people identifying their culture in any reasonable way. I think the idea of ethnicity is a thin veneer. From Elias's statements, it is clear that he doesn't understand what I'm saying: he misrepresents me repeatedly. We are writing an encyclopaedia here. It's far from perfect, but we strive for neutrality. Writing articles that present an Assyrianist view and labelling the widespread contrary view as the lies of traitors has absolutely no room here. If you take a measured line, compromise, then your additions will eventually be worked into the project. Extreme views, as expressed here, will eventually be editted out. Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. — Gareth Hughes 21:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So now I'm an extremist too. Let's see: extremist, national mysticism, biased. Thanks, what more? And of course, needless to say, these are not personal attacks. Garzo, why do you want this [ Syriac Assyrians ] article deleted? Do you believe it's a minority of Syriacs who claim to be Assyrians? Guess again, you're wrong. This Aramaean identity, is something new, and it's really just based on religious propaganda, from Assyrians who consider the Aramaic language to be divine or something. 100 years ago, no Assyrian ever claimed to be an Aramaean. Heck, even 50 years ago, it wasn't common to hear an Assyrian say that he's an Aramaean. This Aramaeanism movement, began here in Sweden and Germany. It's just lies and indoctrination based on ignorance of our history and the fact that we speak Aramaic today. It's indoctrination spread by some Syriacs, and it's unfortunately, gaining ground, mainly, in the Syriac Orthodox Churches. Still, most Syriacs, identify as Assyrians. It is not 'a portion of Syriacs' who identify as Assyrians, as you stated in your vote. I'm willing to work with others, but you obviously have an anti-Assyrian agenda. You've said before, "Assyriology is the preserve of Assyriologists." When we have an expert Assyriologist from Finland, claiming that they are the descendants of the ancient Assyrians (and he's not alone in this amongst Assyriologists, mind you). Why can you not accept this then? Because some confused Syriacs say they're not? We are writing an encyclopaedia here. It's far from perfect, but we strive for neutrality. — That's true. How about, giving the Syriac Assyrians article a chance on improving it, before wanting it deleted already? It's far from perfect. So far, I'm the only one who has edited it. Try to help out instead of deleting everything you disagree with. Writing articles that present an Assyrianist view and labelling the widespread contrary view as the lies of traitors has absolutely no room here. — I did not write in the main article, that they are traitors and liars. If you want to be neutral, you shouldn't even pay attention to claims from Assyrians trying to be Neo-Babylonians and/or Aramaeans, because really, there's no facts to back that up. But hey, Jesus was an Aramaean; that's not a lie, right? Right. Jesus was an Aramaean, is a point of view we must include just to make those Aramaean cry babies satisfied. After all, this is a game of appeasement, not professionalism. Yes, we can include that some Chaldeans/Syriacs do not identify as Assyrians if that makes you happy, but that's opinions. Opinions are not facts. Here's the choice: work with others and have influence, or stand alone and have none. — Is that a threat? Are you going to conspire against me now or what? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:34 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

The DNA tests are questionable. The statement "Sure, we have some Chaldeans and some Syriacs, who disregard their Assyrian heritage" actually means that they don't agree with you, Elias. The consensus is also against you here. Do you want in? — Gareth Hughes 21:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want in? — What's that supposed to mean? What's your issue with the DNA tests? Look, if we look the same, if we speak the same language, if we follow the same religion, if we are derived from the same region (Middle East), and if we have a unique DNA profile, what more could you want? There's no consensus against me. If anything, there's a consensus amongst all Assyrians, against Chaldeanism/Aramaeanism. It's just you, who want to give these revisionists a more influential voice, regardless if there's any truth in what they say or not. Why? Do you see them as some sort of oppressed minority, is that it? Garzo, are you familiar with the Syriacs in Sweden, and how many here consider themselves Assyrians? Believe me, this Aramaean nonsense, there's not even a consensus amongst themselves. They're constantly fighting over if it should be Syrianer or Araméer. Some even claim that the Kingdom of Armenia, was Aramaean, simply due to the similarity of the names. And you want to take these uneducated morons seriously? — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:34 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you are looking for trouble. Remember, this is Wikipedia, not some random mailing list. We have rules. I only just saw your post at Talk:Assyrians, where you indulge in statements like

He's most likely, (a wild guess) a Communist. That's fine, because I hate Communism with an ardent fire.

So I suppose Jimbo Wales is a communist too, and Wikipedia is a big communist conspiracy? Then what are you even doing here? You know what, you can take your various hatreds and spill them elsewhere. On Wikipedia, we prefer to cultivate a hate-free environment conductive to WP:NPOV and WP:ENC. Wikipedia also has means of enforcing these. dab (𒁳) 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking for trouble? What's that supposed to mean? Of course I don't like Communists. Would you like a radical atheist who wants to kill you for believing in God? I don't like Nazis either because they want to kill me for not being "Aryan". What does this have to do with the topic we're discussing now? Are you trying to make me look bad? The reason why I guessed you're a Communist, is because you have this weird obsession with nationalism, and religion.[2] What the hell man, give me a break. Only a Communist cares that much about observing peoples of different faiths and nationality. I bet you think Karl Marx was awesome and right on just about everything too. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:38 03 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

AFD?

Garzo, was that really necessary? I mean, don't you think you're being immature now? On the Ashurism article, you wanted me to cite sources, from Assyriologists. I've cited sources in this article, from an Assyriologist. Why is that not enough for you? Why are trying to make a fuss out of this? Is this something personal against me? If you have academic sources, claiming that they aren't Assyrians, you are welcome to provide them and perhaps even include them. If not, why should we include personal opinions? That is not how an Encyclopaedia operates. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:12 02 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Cool

People, please lets keep it cool. I know theres alot of "Chaldeans aren't assyrians, yes they are" etc. but how bout this:

• We include in the article that there is a belief that Chaldeans are Assyrians. We then cite, source and explain etc.
• Then we can state that some Chaldeans believe they are descended from Neo-Babylonians.

Tourskin 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we can do it that way. But they are, regardless of what they believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Assyrians. Many Chaldean Catholics, don't identify as Assyrians, because they haven't been taught about their own history. Claims of being Neo-Babylonians, is ridculous, and they were designated with the name Chaldeans by the Roman Catholic Church, thousands of years after the Neo-Babylonian Empire had been destroyed. Still though, there are many Chaldean Catholics who identify as Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:19 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but we need to agree and know where we disagree. Anyways, at the moment whats wrong with the article or does simply need maintenance? Tourskin 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article; it's cited from academic scholars, and the sources are serious sources. It has since it was created, stated that they are Assyrians. Garzo, never had a problem with this, until I changed the title from the erroneous "Chaldean community", into the more proper Chaldean Assyrians, just to conform to Wiki standard in naming of ethnic groups. You know, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardi Jews, etcetera. So, now, because of that, Garzo wants to delete this article because he's into censorship and he obviously has something against Assyrians, for some reason. If you want to, you can vote here and here, provided that you want to get down to work on these articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 08:07 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Severely outdated

The content of this article is in dire need of being updated. It appears as if this was taken directly from a 19th century book based on limited research. Note the incessant mentioning of the term "Nestorian", which nowadays would certainly be much more reduced, if not eliminated, from scholarly articles concerning the adherents of the Church of the East. I can go on and on, but the bottom line is that this needs to be updated. --Šarukinu 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content in this article, is directly imported from the Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1913, by Dbachmann. It could need some more work. Perhaps we should delete the Catholic Encyclopedia content, and just provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article about Chaldean Christians. From there, we should rework the content and focus on Chaldean Asyrians as an ethnic group. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:19 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Chaldeans? Assyrians or Babylonians

How many times have you heard people saying, my nationality is Assyrian, but my religion is Chaldean Catholic. Well my friends let me break your heart!! Back in the 9th century Bc until 6th century Bc, Chaldeans and Babylonians assimilatd into a culture shaped by the two cultures, simply the people became like brothers and sisters. This is when the Assyrian empire was pushed out of Iraq and back to Turkey and since then was destroyed, forcing many Assyrians, especially the working class and also the upper classes to settle down in Turkey. Babylonians (mainly cause they outnumbered the Chaldeans) took advantage of the land of Northern Iraq for farming, mainly because the farming land around Babylon started to become very poor. I am not denying many Assyrians, especially the poor were left behind in their farm lands in today's northern Iraq, however, many more Babylonian and Chaldeans settled in the land. The Babylonians, being under the persian empire had no choice of choosing their faith and was forced to accept the teaching of Nestorians, (remember that the Assyrians were in lands of today's Turkey) however, when the persian empire was falling apart, they choose to reunite with the Catholic Church, looking back into their past for traces of the Church, they found out that Abraham was from Chaldea, and since Chaldeans and Babylonians assimilated hundreds of years ago into one culture, they accepted to call their religion Chaldean Catholic even though the majority of the population was Babylonian, however the only problem is that within this new culture, a number of Assyrians lived in them, the descendants of the poor families who were left behind when the Assyrian Empire was retreating into today's Turkey, that is the reason why i never claim racial purity. So you can actually call today's Chaldeans, Babylonians, but not Assyrian. And if you believe that all Chaldeans are Assyrian Catholic, then why is that there are people calling themeselve Assyrian Catholic, should they not call themeselve Chaldeans, this proves your theory all wrong about Chaldeans being Assyrian.

Asm ccc 07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

What you obviously don't understand, is that the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, were the exact same people from the beginning. Difference is, the Assyrians had their capital in Assur (later Nineveh), and the Babylonians had their capital in Babylon. Both peoples emerged from miscegenation between Sumerians and Akkadians, and they were both competing for dominance in Mesopotamia. The Assyrians had conquered most of the known world; Babylon was just a city, and it was tightly controlled by Assyrians, and even destroyed by Assyrians every now and then. Sometimes, Assyrians were designated as rulers of Babylon. Either way, the Chaldean Catholic Church was created with Assyrian converts, its new adherents were mainly former Nestorians, and we know what they are. Converting to a new Church, doesn't make you a completely different people all of a sudden. If you have any academic scholars supporting your theory, you are welcome to bring them into this article. If not, we can not include personal opinions. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:30 05 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

It is important to establish before I begin that I am a historian studying at the University of New South Wales, and that the fact, which will be shown is what really is noted in history of the near east, not the bias opinion some people hold.

Before I begin with the truth, I would like to point out some misleading information stated above. I quote: "What you obviously don't understand, is that the Babylonians, and the Assyrians, were the exact same people from the beginning" (unquote), as a matter of fact, there is no historical accuracy in this statement, and this is only a 'bias' perspective held in deep regard by the Assyrian people. If the Babylonians and Assyrians were the same people, may I question, how people in todays society can make such judgements when fact is not prevalent and furthermore whilst cuneiform clearly states a 'difference' between the two being Babylonian and Assyrian.

Furthermore it was stated that quote: "the Chaldean Catholic Church was created with Assyrian converts" (unquote). This is a swipe at the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is inaccurate purely because it is based on no facts! I am certain that if the Chaldean Catholic Church was created by Assyrian converts, it would not have taken this name, but it is more rather the concept that people call themselves "Assyrian Catholics", when they should truly and in all honesty be calling themselves Chaldeans if what is stated is true. Furthermore, Chaldean Catholics have not been closely attached to the "Assyrian Church of the East" in both there rites and sacraments from day dot to now. It is amusing to see that people with such a bias opinion are allowed to comment and with such historical and religious inaccuracy, I recommend people be checking comments especially in this article.

On a final note, where it was stated that converting to a new church does not make you a new people all of sudden, I challenge this in saying that it does, in terms of your religious person. We must take into account the development of the whole person, and one major branch so happens to be religion, meaning that in fact you are seen as a different person spirtually and religous wise. Hence, it is not a matter of being a 'new' people, of course it does not make Chaldeans a new people, because Chaldeans have always existed as a seperate people from the Assyrians.

It is great that the real fact be shown and that people are enlightened to the truth, not the false merky water of propaganda.

Andrew.hermiz 02:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all that well argued, Andrew, but fair enough. Certainly, ancient peoples did not have the same idea of ethnicity as was held in the 19th century (the modern view is that the idea is mostly subjective). Babylonians and Assyrians clearly held a lot in common, but did distinguish themselves from one another. It is quite clear that these distincitons were less than their commonality. As for the founding of the Chaldean Catholic Church, it was founded by a distinct group (mostly those living in the Plain of Mosul before the hill tribes moved south also) of the Church of the East before it took up the name 'Assyrian'. It does not seem that the term 'Chaldean' was widely used either, and perhaps reflected some idea (to the Latins?) of 'southern' Mesopotamian as opposed to 'northern' Hakkari. I agree that a divided church creates more than an institutional division. It does seem like ancient names are being used all round without a clear link to their origin. — Gareth Hughes 16:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Two things: I don't care if you are a self-proclaimed historian. I am a Chaldean Catholic, and I am an Assyrian. More and more Chaldean Catholics are finding out about the history of our Church, and now identify as Assyrians. We don't like the Church split-ups the Roman Catholic Church made with our people. This divide and rule mentality, has seriously damaged us as a people. Please, don't make things worse than they are. We are the exact same people. We are Assyrians. Please cease this indoctrination of yours. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:43 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

It is highly likely that you are a Chaldean Catholic, because many Assyrians are Chaldean Catholic, however you probably only state you are Assyrian, but you are most probably Chaldean. If Chaldeans were not a people and not a distinguished race of its own, then why is it that people in ancient times were referred to as Chaldeans? Is this to in links with religion? Clearly not. As a historian I have studied more then what you have, so I don't care what your opinion is, and if anything I would have a broader general knowledge. Furthermore, Babylonians where there own people, and having said that NEO-BABYLONIANS are Chaldeans, meaning that Babylonians of the past, are Chaldeans of the future. Does this not formulate the fact that Chaldeans are Assyrians? Why are they not called Neo-Assyrians? And why is it that we are called Neo-Babylonians. You have one Assyrian aruging it was founded by a group of people in Mosul and then you have arguing that it was the Roman Catholic Church's fault? It is neither. Being a religion of there own, Chaldean Catholics chose to be in unisome with the Pope as they saw his Infallible character and as they argreed with Church Doctrine, outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We as Chaldean Catholics are dedicated Catholics from day dot to now, and we are following the ONE TRUE AND HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH. It is highly evident throughout the case presented that there is no historical knowledge, and that bias opinions have spell bound the Assyrian people. Andrew.hermiz 01:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously the one who's biased here. You want to be a "Chaldean" because you have this holier than thou attitude. It's the same with those Syriacs, they think they become somewhat holier by calling themselves "Aramaeans". The irony, is that both of you are neither pure Aramaeans nor are you pure Chaldeans. You are simply Assyrians. Can you attest that you are a qualified historian? So far, you haven't impressed me the least. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:09 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Picture - Chaldean Catholic Assyrians from Mardin, 19th century

The caption for this picture, is living proof of the bias perspective of the Assyrian people. How can you gurantee that the people in that picture are Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, and it is important to establish that this images caption be changed as it is not accuarte, in turn giving a false perspective to people willing to read. Which person can gurantee 100% that they are Chaldean Catholic "Assyrians"? It is pointless in me asking as nobody can.

I move a motion to change the caption of this picture to "Chaldean Catholic Church Members from Mardin in the 19th Century"

Andrew.hermiz 02:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• It's what the source of the image describes them as. Funkynusayri 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, the image is sourced as Chaldeansoftheprovinceof_Mardin.JPG, I do NOT see it say "Chaldean Catholic Assyrians from Mardin, 19th century". It was a good try though, but don't spin me around with technology because I know it inside out. In fact, inlight of this new evidence, as we may call it, I further reinstate the motion to change the caption of this image to "Chaldeans of the province of Mardin, 19th Century"

Andrew.hermiz 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that's the file name, not the source. Anyhow, you're right, the actual source (the website where the picture is from) doesn't say they're Assyrians: "A postcard by the Cappucin mission in Mesopotemia of two Chaldean men from the villages surrounding the town of Mardin in South East Turkey, along the Syrian border. Chaldean Christians recognize the Pope as the head of the Universal Church. They split from the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church in the sixteenth century. Chaldean Christians are found in largest concentrations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the United States (Detroit), Europe, and Australia. The head of the Church, the Patriarch, resides in Baghdad with the title of "the Patriarch of Babylon". He has the rank of a Cardinal in the Catholic church. Their liturgy is in Aramaic." http://mideastimage.com/result.aspx Funkynusayri 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It is exremely ironic that you say that Babylonians are Assyrians, see it is evident, you Assyrians want to take the credit for absoulete everything. Yes i agree if you go back in history, all the way back to the Sumerians, I must agree (we)Babylonians, and Assyrians were of the same people, but so were the Gauls and Franks at one stage, and so were the Swedish and the Norwegian, however, they dont call Norwegians, Swedish because at one stage they were the Vikings. If they were to unite the Scandinavians, it is not fair to call them all Norwegians, would it, and that is why I call myself quite often, "souraya" for me it means Christian, for you it could mean whatever you want it to be, however, the point I am trying to make in the easiest way possible for everyone to understand, "Yes i agree we (Babylonians and Chaldeans) are of the same people of Assyrians, however, when we were the same people, the title Assyria did not exsist as a nation, but it was Sumeria, so it is wrong of you to Generalise us as Assyrians. When the two split, (Assyria and Babylonia) they started to become more independently of each other and started to destroy each other throughout the ages. You must remember, that even back then, the kings of Assyria and Babylonia, never called themeselve King of Assyria nor Babylonia, but refereed themeselve to king of Sumeria or Akkad, both the titles Assyria and Babylonia derived later on.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 11:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

hello? this is about a label given to this community in 1553. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient Chaldeans vs. the ancient Assyrians. 1553 AD is not the same as 800 BC, what is so difficult to understand about this? dab (𒁳) 11:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with dab. It was a label given to Assyrians in 1553. It doesn't mean we became an entirely different people just because the Roman Catholic Church started calling us something else. Marco, you still seem to be under the illusion that you are the true, racially pure descendants of the ancient Neo-Babylonians. Please, give me a break. — EliasAlucard|Talk 14:27 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are the exact same in trying to say that you are the same pure descendants of the ancient Assyrians, so it is quite hypocritical to say that to Prof. Marco. Furthermore, you need to read more cuneiform, because that really does shatter your case and your enitre POV on this matter. Andrew.hermiz 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about your opinion. To me, your opinion holds no weight. This guy says that we are Assyrians. He can read Akkadian, as you can see, at the end of the clip. I take his word any day over yours. He knows everything about us. I repeat, he knows everything about us. H. W. F. Saggs and Simo Parpola, two prominent Assyriologists, who both can read Akkadian, say that we are descendants of the ancient Assyrians. Of course, we are also descendants of the ancient Babylonians, and the Chaldeans, and the Aramaeans and the Sumerians as well. We are after all, Mesopotamians. But the Assyrian identity, is the most important one, since the Assyrians were the people who expanded the most, which logically, makes us most of all, Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:04 07 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, quote " Of course, we are also descendants of the ancient Babylonians, and the Chaldeans, and the Aramaeans and the Sumerians as well. We are after all, Mesopotamians" so you agree with me, that we are descendants of all these factions however then you state "But the Assyrian identity, is the most important one, since the Assyrians were the people who expanded the most, which logically, makes us most of all, Assyrians". With all your respect, you sound like a three year old stating that just because the British expanded the most throughout History, all of us need to call us British, see how stupid it sounds. Yes i agree with your last statement, that a number of those who call themeselve Chaldean could be Assyrian and vice versa, however, stating that all of us should be labelled Assyrians because they expanded the most is ridicilous. And just to clarify this, I am not stating that this is about Ancient Chaldea verse Ancient Assyria, but as a graduated person, all of the perspectives needs to be included, including Geography. To further clarify my past argument, I would like to state that by referring to the Ancient people, I was referring to where the people were situated after the fall of their empires, which in the case of Assyria, it would be mainly today's Turkey.

An further agreement with DAB is to be made about the label given to the community in 1553, however, just to clarify some certain areas, is that the community which was labeled had a background stretching back to Babylonia, and not Assyria.

To who ever you are, relying on people who can read cuneiform to decide if the converted Chaldeans were Assyrians is of the highest level of stupidity. Last time i checked, they did not write in cuneiform in 1553, nor could the people of the past who could write cuneiform predict the whole future. Next time you type about your "scholars" make sure it is relevant.

Finally, I just want to introduce propaganda, and this stretches back to King Henry 8. His enemy was the Roman Catholic Church and since than, Britian and the Roman Catholic Church have never been closed. Since the Assyrians were long united with the British, it is with no suprise that the stories, and the internet website could be altered to Assyrian's favour to make the follower of the Catholic Church seem of "less value" of those who follow the British.

58.168.71.95 11:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

Oh please, stop glorifying yourself. You can mention hundred and fifty times that you are a historian, that you go to college, or what have you. It doesn't matter. This guy, who is capable of reading Akkadian, is an Assyriologist (that's a science, mind you). He knows EVERYTHING about us. If he says we Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians, then so we are. just to clarify some certain areas, is that the community which was labeled had a background stretching back to Babylonia, and not Assyria. — Source please. And make sure it's academic. As for the Assyrians expanding, I don't think you get it. The Assyrians wouldn't have been able to conquer that much, if they weren't a majority. And since the name "Chaldeans" hasn't been used in 2000 years until 1553, but Assyrians was in use (in the form of Suraya/Suryoyo), that means, we are Assyrians, not Chaldeans. Converting to another Church, doesn't suddenly make you a racially pure Neo-Babylonian, with newly, magically imported "Chaldean genes" straight of nowhere. Man, I can't believe you fall for this Chaldean crap. We Chaldean Catholics were former members of the Assyrian Church of the East. What, do you think that they picked racially pure "Chaldeans" all of a sudden for the new Catholic converts when they started the new Church? Please, give me a break. And don't bother mentioning that you are some kind of historian again. Thanks, but I want academic opinions on this, not assertions. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:19 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I could not stop laughing after I had finished reading this comment, because it proves nothing but the fact that Assyrians are bias and full of a anti-chaldean point of view. It was stated that, quote: "This guy, who is capable of reading Akkadian, is an Assyriologist (that's a science, mind you). He knows EVERYTHING about us. If he says we Chaldean Catholics are Assyrians, then so we are", unquote. To begin with, let me call to my intelligence and if you have some call to yours 'ASSYRIOLOGIST', do you not understand that part of the formation of that word is "ASSYRIO"? This just shows that of course they are going to say Chaldeans are Assyrians, because they are not supportive and/or recognising of th Chaldean people but more rather how to expand the ego Assyrians already have. Furthermore, can you tell me right now with proof that there is no bias in the opinions and "factual" evidence, which they "apparently" gained. I have put those in inverted commas because firstly, I doubt they are factual and secondly apparently was put in inverted commas because you said 'this guy'. There are a million guys, which guy is it? Hence, What do you mean if he says we are Assyrians then so we are, if shows how gullable and mainpulated you can be, so if he says Assyrians never existed it means it is true? If I said Iraq is not on the world map and I am an assyriologist does that make it true and believable? Obiviously NOT!

Then it was stated, quote: "And since the name "Chaldeans" hasn't been used in 2000 years until 1553, but Assyrians was in use (in the form of Suraya/Suryoyo), that means, we are Assyrians, not Chaldeans". Give me evidence and give me proof that nobody for 2000 years has mentioned the name Chaldean. You were not living in that time or era so how can you state that nobody used it, once again you go by what other people say, and that in turn forms a bias perspective. Hence, let me reflect on ACCURATE historical soruces to tear the case presented apart and to bring all people out of the merky water Assyrians have left them in. After Assyria fell, there was the last group of semitic people dominating that area. Babylon rose up against Assyria and went to the city of Nineveh and burnt it to the ground! After this the Chaldean King Nebuchadnezzar brought Babylon to be one of the greatest cities in its time. So if the Assyrian Empire fell, and the Babylonian Empire still existed, what chances are there of not naming Chaldeans for 2000 years? How can you stand there and say that they were not named for 2000 years when they are the ones who at the end of the rift between the two nations came on top, and in doing so there is a higher possibility of remembering the person that won and took control, not the one that fell under the slums of a burnt and shattered Nineveh. Do we remember who came second or do we remember and keep in mind who came up on top, and defeated and tore Nineveh down?

Finally, what do you mean when you say "Chaldean crap"? With all due respect, you are the one who has fallen for the Assyrian crap and there bias and ever so lies in there point of views. Furthermore you stated that, quote: "What, do you think that they picked racially pure "Chaldeans" all of a sudden for the new Catholic converts when they started the new Church?" Let us investigate this together. First of all, you are making assertions without any soruces or proof. How on earth can you know what they did or they didn't do, without researching into it? Oh sorry, I forgot you were there to witness these events all along.

I now readily move a motion to rename this article to 'Chaldeans' and to have the right to edit and change the misleading and non-factual information as it provides the innocent public with a bias and ever so lieing background into this whole topic

Andrew.hermiz 03:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, just stop. This is getting embarrassing. You've lost all your credibility. It is called Assyriology, not because the academic professors are biased, but because they study the ancient remnant archaeological discoveries found in the Library of Ashurbanipal. To suggest that they are biased Europeans who are trying to make innocent "Chaldeans" into Assyrians, just because this science, is called Assryiology, is not only stupid, but also, a conspiracy theory. Since you are the one who claims that the misnomer Chaldeans has been in use ever since the Neo-Babylonian Empire, then it's your assertion, and you're the one who's supposed to provide sources for this. Also, while you're at it, explain to me why the last Chaldean king assumed an Assyrian identity? You're no historian. Stop making this up. Hence, let me reflect on ACCURATE historical soruces to tear the case presented apart and to bring all people out of the merky water Assyrians have left them in. — You did not provide one single source in your little rant. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:43 09Aug, 2007 (UTC)

http://history-world.org/chaldeans.htm

There you go !

Andrew.hermiz 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Article name

the article previous was named Chaldean couminuty why did Elias moved it Chaldean assyrians?. do not confuse Assyrians and Chaldeans in IRaq. there are 2 separate groups Nochi 19:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that why half the Assyrian Democratic Movement's members are Chaldean Catholics? — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:08 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

this party was formed by Assyrian-Americans. and all from the Assyrian diaspora have labeld themselfs as Assyrian because of the propoganda but not in Iraq og syria. btw Chaldean term was used from 16th. Assyrian term was used from 19th. Nochi 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice try. This Assyrian party is in Iraq. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:32 09 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Chaldean Assyrians → Chaldeans — There is historical inaccuracy in this article as Chaldeans are a people of there own, and have no Assyrian identity. Furthermore, other modifications have been made to this article, which have showcased the bias opinions of some rectified. —Andrew_Hermiz 10:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Andrew.hermiz 10:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support The reason why I want this website to change is because the article name is bias, to the extent that it needs to be changed. It is simply unacceptable. The argument stating the reason for the title is: followers of the Chaldean Catholic Church are Assyrians and were labelled by the Roman Catholic Church as Chaldean in the 16 th century, how is this possible when the title Assyria did not even exist until the 19 th century (this website proves evidence and is backed up by a number of famous historians http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/ArameanHistory.htm ). The change will clarify that today's Chaldeans are not a branch of Assyrians, if anything, Assyrians should be a branch of a the Turkish people. Asm ccc 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - would like to see it merged with Syriac Christianity along with Nestorian Assyrians and Syriac Assyrians. Chaldean 08:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support After reading the website (hyperlink provided by asm) I believe that this Article needs to be changed since when the today's Chaldean, the ancient Babylonians were given their title by the Pope in the 16th century, the title Assyrian did not even exist, and thsi only proves that this article is full of bias, i thought wikipedia was about facts, not opinions. As a non Assyrian nor Chaldean, i provide this article with only unbias statement RakiRaki 03:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• oppose, no way: Chaldeans needs to be a disambiguation page. I support a move to Chaldean Christians (where I originally created the article, before it was moved (guess by whom) without discussion. dab (𒁳) 09:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is in no way, shape, or form true, and the interesting thing is the main argument of the opposition which agrees with us that many of today's Chaldeans relate back to the ancient Chaldeans and Babylonians, but their twist to the story is that due to the numerous amount of Assyrians outnumbering the other civilisations, we should all be called Assyrians (statement made by user elias Alucard), statement such as these are simply ridiculous.

Asm ccc 00:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

• Support The article should explain that part of the Chaldaeans consider the name to be an indication of the Chaldaean Catholic Church membership, whereas others believe themselves to constitute a separate ethnic group and carry their own flag. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 06:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

whereas others believe themselves to constitute a separate ethnic group and carry their own flag. -they don't, that is the point. There isn't a "flag of their own". You wont find it in the homeland, and no, they don't consider themselves a different ethnic group. Chaldean 12:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support
• SupportAfter doing hours of research for myself, and seeked the truth from highly educated scholars, I believe the Assyrian on the website are bias, and this needs article needs to be changed to take away the propaganda that has been created. Wikipedia is about providing users with the truth and not propaganda, and that is why I am supporting the concept of changing the article name.

Atoraya Nimrud 01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The article name is not factual and history is on the side of Chaldeans. This is because Chaldeans were a people of there own, seperate from the Assyrians. It is evident that throughout the article there has been bias opinions, which have been rectified at the good will of Chaldeans, who have at some times taken offence to what has been said, as we are denyed out national image and that has been placed under the Assyrian banner, which in terms of fact is nothing but false and not true. Chaldeans are a people of there own and because of this, we Chaldeans should have an article name of our own, not with Assyrians in it as they think we are "Assyrians", but we have no link, we are Chaldeans.

Andrew.hermiz 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have absolutely no genetic relation to the ancient Chaldeans. Also, Assyrian nationalists in Iraq, are Chaldean Catholics. Knock it off with these lies. If you can provide academic sources for Chaldean Catholics being the true genetic descendants of the Chaldean dynasty, I will be the first to move this article. Until then, forget about it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:32 10 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Elias, you have already have academic sources, but dont worry, I will bring you actual Assyrialogist, but one thing I am sure of is that he is not to be Assyrian.

Asm ccc 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

Simo Parpola is a very respected Assyriologist from Finland. He is not an Assyrian. He is not biased. He is not making stuff up just to mislead Assyrians. I've cited him in this article, and he is an academic scholar. You won't find academic scholars saying that Chaldean Catholics aren't Assyrians. Don't bother looking, you're only wasting your time. And for the last time, you are neither a historian nor are you a professor. Knock it off with this silly trolling. — EliasAlucard|Talk 09:40 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I am not looking for an assyrialogist anymore cause I have already found one and have talked to him in a number of occasions, but I dont know how to get him to change this article neither do i know how to prove to you that he is an assyrialogist, but until then i want you to visit this website, http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/ArameanHistory.htm but make sure you have your phone ready incase of a heart attack, remember its 999. have a good day. By the way, I am not the historian, that is a fellow Chaldean who is spreading the truth, good on him, and because of you I am personally thinking to study and maybe become an assyrialogist, as soon as I find some time, so I can put an end to this false accusations.

Asm ccc 06:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Professor Marco

This is because Chaldeans were a people of there own, seperate from the Assyrians. - if your going to make outrageous statements like that, you better be ready to reference them. Chaldean 08:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, he linked to the disastrous joke of a site, aramnahrin. Well guess what, according this revisionist site, you are not even a Chaldean, but rather, an Aramaean. Talk about shooting yourself in your own foot. Look, I don't have time to waste on 14 year old confused Assyrians not knowing their own history, pretending to be historians on the internet. Since you have no valid case of merging this article, you'll just have to accept it as it as. Either cite academic scholars, such as Assyriologists, or don't bother making up stories like you've met Assyriologists. I can't take these jokes seriously. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:33 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I dont have any idea how you can take this as a joke, brainwashing people. I never shot myself in the foot, Aramaeans have never had a unified empire; they were divided into independent kingdoms all across the Near East. Yet to these Aramaeans befell the privilege of imposing their language and culture upon the entire Near East and beyond, fostered in part by the mass relocations enacted by successive empires, such as Babylonia. And yes i agree with the website, I am most probably Babylonian, and I will probably never be certain due to the assimilation, however, I am Chaldean Catholic by Religion thank you. This webstie proves that the label Assyrian were introduced by the westerners in the 19 th century, how then could you call Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, keeping in mind that when the Chaldean Church was established the term "Assyrian" did not even exist.

Professor Marco

Asm ccc 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

his website proves that the label Assyrian were introduced by the westerners in the 19 th century, how then could you call Chaldean Catholic Assyrians, keeping in mind that when the Chaldean Church was established the term "Assyrian" did not even exist. - this is where the problem exist; you are totally ignorant of the subject. Because if you weren't then you won't be making a statement like that. We were called Suraya when the Roman Catholic Church arrived in the Middle East in the 16th century. Suraya (which by the way, last time I checked, its what us Chaldeans primarily call ourselves today) is deriveded from Assuraya. Their are many different academic references sourcing this in the Assyrian people page. If you stopped for a second and realized how ridiculous that website you keep on posting is, and actually start doing reading about the subject, then maybe just maybe you would get the big picture of this subject. Until then, you can't move the page from Assyrian Chaldean to Chaldeans on the grounds that Chaldeans is not an ethnic group, but rather a religious sect. Pshena. Chaldean 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Marco, Chaldeans today, are just that: Assyrians. The Aramaeans, were assimilated into the Assyrian nation. You are not a Babylonian. Such a claim, is not possibly to prove. Firstly, because a city like Babylon hasn't existed for thousands of years. Second of all, no ethnic group has identified as Babylonians in thousands of years, whilst ethnic groups have identified as Assyrians ever since the destruction of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. In fact, the last Neo-Babylonian king, was an Assyrian. About that website, it's a conspiracy website, not an academic source. We preferably stick to academic Italic textsources here on Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:07 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

First you claim that Babylonians are Assyrians, and then you state that their last king (which I agree with) was Assyrian ( and the reason for the decline in power), well doesn't that only prove that Babylonians are not Assyrians, you are simply arguing among yourself. Secondly, Babylonians were not only from the city of Babylon, but of the whole Babylonian Empire. The website that has been provided by Marco, is approved by scholars, I dont know what more you need, and it proves that the Assyrian title was given to today's Assyrians in the 19 th century. I dont disagree, the term Assyria was mentioned in a number of occasions, however, only referring to the land, not the people. Quote: "The Aramaeans, were assimilated into the Assyrian nation", this is a bias opinion. I agree with the theory that the farmers who stayed behind when the Neo Assyrian Empire was pushed back belongs to today's Aramaeans living in Iraq, however, the majority consists of the descendants of the citizens of the neo Babylonian Empire, accepting the fact, that Babylonia was the last native Empire to the land of mesopotamia to control the region of today's Iraq. Arameans are both Ancient Babylonians, Ancient Chaldeans and some Ancient Assyrians, which all share the Chaldean Catholic faith. Marco has not failed to provide academic sources, there are plenty of scholars proving this theory true, its just that "you cant handle the truth"

I believe we are all one people, and a perect name to put our people under is Aramean where we can take credit of what the Assyrian, Babylonian, Chaldean, Akkadian and Sumerian Empire has accomplished, but by calling us Assyrians is simply not acceptable, since we are not all Assyrians, from all i know, Assyrians could be the minority, and the real Assyrians could still be living in Turkey, believing that they are descendants of turks or kurds.

Pshena my brothers, and dont argue, offer back the Chaldean Article for the sake of peace between Chaldeans and Assyrians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.108.27 (talk • contribs)

If you're not going to cite academic sources, nothing is going to change. Sorry. Your sockpuppets aren't impressing me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 13:10 13 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

• Support

(Baggygreen 408)

Chaldeans = Assyrians, its a very simple equation

I would just like to clarify something here. What Chaldeans are doing wrong is that they are classifying their race, their nationality, their blood in relation to what religion they are. So for instance, if i am a Russian Orthodox, does that make me Russian by blood? Why cant you accept it that you are Chaldean by faith alone. Can you tell me one Chaldean individual who is not a Chaldean Catholic? and please dont make up a name, sourced facts would be more welcome in this discussion than made up facts like some unnamed Assyriologist you "happened to meet". Lentheric33 07:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic is not a simple concept such as 1*1=1. Marco has continually stated that he believes that he is only Chaldean by faith, but Babylonian by blood, something none of the Assyrians on wikipedia seems to understand. Your argument is very interesting, and as an Assyrian i belong to the Assyrian Church of the East, and every Assyrian I know belongs to the Assyrian Church of the East, according to you that means us Assyrians are only Assyrian by faith. As an Assyrian i like to respect other people's nationalities and cultures, and try not to be bias at all, but it seems like all Assyrians on the wesbsite are simply stubborn and bias, first you ask Marco, (whether he is a "Professor" or not)to supply you with sources and even when he/she does you simply claim it is bias, that is not fair, and as proud Assyrians we should not destroy someone's culture in order to make Assyrians look better. I am ashamed of Assyrians who say bad things about Chaldeans, since they are our brothers and sisters, keeping in mind that we were both a part of the Sumerian Empire.

After reading both sides of the argument, and with a rich background, I believe with no doubt that we are both a different people with a history which connects back at the Sumerian Empire, and I am ashamed of only somne Assyrians and you are on of them Lentheric33 becuase you are simply stubborn, full of bias and dont treat everyone with respect and understanding.

Atoraya Nimrud 01:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe with no doubt that we are both a different people - reading what some young fools in Australia are writing will get you nowhere! PLEASE, go back to the homeland and see if a village that is Catholic and a village 1 kilometer away that is ACOE are different in culture. I assure you what these kids are saying here will not be heard of in the homeland where it counts. Chaldean 03:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Atoraya Nimrud, please do not make this personal, we are having a friendly discussion, i respect everything you say, but that wont mean i cant give my side of the story. It is wrong for an individual to edit or create an article without sufficient sources, you cannot criticise me for question the validity of user:asm_ccc's sources, if the sources arent reliable or valid then it would unwise to make any changes to the article. I would also like to apologise to anyone who would have been offended by my previous comment, i will attempt to put forward my concepts in a varying manner in the future.

I would also like to build on the statement made by user:Chaldean, if one was to return to the homeland and see the two different villages he would see their 'culture' isnt varying in respect to what faith they are, they are one nationality, different religion.

Also, please do not generalise Atoraya Nimrud, quote -something none of the Assyrians on wikipedia seems to understand- You also state that every Assyrian you know is from the Assyrian Church of the East, are you saying you know every single Assyrian? as a matter of fact there are many Assyrians by race with different religions these include Ashurists, Chaldean Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Orthodox. just like my example above, if a man is a Russian orthodox, does that make him Russian by blood??

Lentheric33 08:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News

Excerpt: “In Saddam-era Iraq, the country's 800,000 Christians — many of them Chaldean-Assyrians and Armenians, with small numbers of Roman Catholics — were generally left alone.” [3] — I rest my case. — EliasAlucard|Talk 11:03 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

move

If "Chaldean Assyrians" is controversial, move it to Chaldean Christians, or Chaldeans (Syriac Christians), but not to Chaldeans, which needs to disambiguate from the ancient people. Wikipedia:naming conventions requires us to use the most commonly used name. I get 2,000 google hits for "Chaldean Assyrians", and 20,000 for "Chaldean Christians". The case is cleary against "Chaldean Assyrians", imho. "Chaldeans" together with "Christian" gives me some 190,000 hits, so that this article probably should be at "Chaldeans" but for WP:DAB. It follows that we have the two options of (a) Chaldean Christians, or (b) a disambiguated title like Chaldeans (Syriac Christians) or Chaldeans (Christian) or similar. dab (𒁳) 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not about political correctness. You can't use "controversial" arguments against this. Controversy is beside the point. Also, the media reports it as "Chaldean Assyrians" (as I showed above). This is just more of Benne's Aramean censorship (I saw his message at your talk page). The Chaldean Catholics in Iraq, are Assyrians. Wikipedia doesn't participate in naming disputes. They are Assyrians, and have a group identity. They should be, here on Wikipedia, named Chaldean Assyrians, just like Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews are named that way. No arguments here, moving this article into a more politically correct name is not right. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:22 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "Chaldean Christians" is just the same as "Chaldean Catholics". That is not a proper ethnic term, it is a follower of the Chaldean Catholic Church. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:25 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

article titling is by common usage, and neither by political correctness nor by "truth". Church adherence and ethnicity are not the same, but they are related. The Syriacs as a whole are also a religious community rather than an ethnicity (or are there "Muslim Assyrians"?). dab (𒁳) 11:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

(or are there "Muslim Assyrians"?) — No, not really. At least none that counts in the overall picture. As for renaming this into Chaldeans, that is not at all common usage. Far from it. Amongst the Chaldean Catholics, even less identify as strictly "Chaldeans" compared with the the "Aramaye" Assyrians. Look, Chaldean Assyrians is the proper title for this. Stop causing trouble. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:19 17 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

dab i am more than happy to change the article to Chaldean Christian, and i hope that would end this discussion. EliasAlucard you make me laugh, just because the media says a person is homosexual it does not mean they are right, nor does it in this case. If the media is your most reliable source, I can not stress how sorry I am for you. EliasAlucard you mentioned that if someone is Russian Orthodox, it does not make him or her Russian by blood, and i totally agree, however, what you failed to understand is that when you stated that, you contradiced yourself, proving that your arguments are not trustworthy, if a Russian Orthodox is not necessary Russian by blood, why then do you state and make other believe that if you are Chaldean Catholic, you must be Assyrian by blood, notice the contradiction. I have always stated that no Chaldean of today could claim racial purity, cause there is an unkwon percentage of the people who have mixed with different cultures, but implying that if you are Chaldean Catholic you are simply Assyrian, that is not acceptable, and you by stating "if someone is Russian Orthodox, it does not make him or her Russian by blood" are agreeing with me, but then you go on to contradict yourself again. Next time before you edit something, make sure your arguments are consistent and more importantly, make sure you dont contradict yourself, cause that will be the most sensible thing to do. And for you Chaldean, am I getting on your nerves, why would you call me a "young fool", is it because you know your arguments are failing and people are starting to believe me more. I will ask nicely of you to stop the personal attacks as it is not accepted in wikipedia, and communicate in a civilised manner. dab, I hope I am not asking to much of you, but could you please change the artice name to Chaldean Christian and mention that the majority of the members of this Church lives in today's Iraq and have a link to the indegenous people of that land (without mentioning ancient Assyrian, Babylonian nor Chaldean). And if you choose to do that, I will thank you for ever so much.

Professor Marco

Shlama

Professor Marco, you are mistaken, it was i Lentheric33 who stated the comment about Russians, not user:eliasalucard, so before you criticse others about the way they structure their arguments, please analyse your own comments for errors. Lentheric33 04:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Asm ccc 08:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday, i had no idea that you could discuss about the articles, however, when I found out I saw Assyrians and Chaldeans arguing. Why do you do so. One thing I cant understand is fellow Assyrians trying to desperately prove that Chaldeans are Assyrians and I wonder why. Why are they so desperate, I whonder what us Assyrians would do if they called us by another name. I believe that we are the same people, but I understand that calling us all Assyrians is not acceptable for the chaldeans and vice versa, and I think it is an excellent idea to call the article Chaldean Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assyrian74 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-18T12:41:08

excellent points. The reason we are having these discussions is that one Wikipedia feels very strongly about the question, that's all. Since the move was not discussed in the first place, and you seem to agree that "Chaldean Christans" is a good title, I'll move it back there for now. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What's so funny about this pseudoprofessor, is that he can't even read. He's accusing me of this "Russian Orthodox" and how I am allegedly, contradicting myself. Yet, I haven't even mentioned anything about Russian Orthodox vis-à-vis Chaldean Catholic. It was User:Lentheric33 who made a Russian Orthodox parallell,[4] not me. As for your other stuff, look, bring me a trustworthy academic source claiming, with convincing arguments that Chaldean Catholics are not Assyrians and somehow, true Chaldeans, we can move this. Until then, we have several multiple sources, of which one is by an academic scholar, stating, for a fact, that Chaldean Catholics, are Assyrians. Don't bother with filling this talk page up with more of your little homilies. You have no academic sources, obviously, which means, that this article, will be titled as Chaldean Assyrians until you can prove it otherwise. And you don't gain more credibility by calling yourself a "professor". — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:38 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

says it all. "Chaldean Christians" is more current by a factor of about 10. They are still Assyrians (as the article still states), but that's how they are commonly called. dab (𒁳) 11:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Chaldean Assyrians

Dab, you should move it back. There was nothing wrong with the title, it only confirmed the content in the actual article. It's not like this article, with the sources in mind, are stating that Chaldean Catholics are something other than Assyrians. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:44 18 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

I think the perfect title of this article should be the History of the Chaldean Church, since that is all this article is talking about - history of the church. Any mentioning of "Chaldean culture" or "Chaldean music" etc, are redundant of Assyrian culture, Assyrian music. Chaldean 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Answer to Elias' revert comment: Well, you could say the same about for example Druze and Alawites too, they belong chiefly to a single ethnic group, Arabs, or Yazidis who are Kurds, but going as far as giving them ethnic group infoboxes is a bad idea, as it would imply they are an ethnic group within themselves. What they (Chaldeans) are is simply a sect of Syriac Christianity, and I think you would be the first to point out that they are Assyrians by ethnicity. Also, an image in the infobox is a nice thing. Funkynusayri 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right. This is for the better. I'm also quite sick of Chaldeans trying to make 'Chaldean' into an ethnicity. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We redirected the Syriac-Aramean people's page directly to Assyrian people. We should do the same here and with Nestorians, if not we should restore the Syriac-Aramean people's page.--Yohanun (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

They already did, see Syriac people Chaldean (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States of America should be added to the population, according to our priest there are actually more Chaldeans in the united states than any other country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SolutionsPal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to a discussion in Archive 1

EliasAlucard, that did happen with ethnic Germans. Austrians, Liechtensteiners and Germanophone Swiss now have their own, non-German identity. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

additional soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Assyrians in Iraq are a minority; the majority of the Aramaic speaking Christians in Iraq are either Chaldean or Syriac, neither of the two claim to be Assyrian. There are Assyrians that are part of each church, do not confuse a pupil that attends the Chaldean Catholic/Syriac Orthodox Church, but calls himself Assyrian. Chaldeans are of Arab ancestry and Syriacs are of Aramean ancestry. Assyrians have nothing to do with ancient Assyrians. They are simply a group of Persian Christians/Armenians that were fooled by British Evangelists. They are Ah-Toor-A-Yah(Atoraya), meaning the people of the mountains, not Assyrians pertaining to Assur. Their issue is complex and they are bending the truth about the Christians of the Middle East, specifically the Syriacs and Chaldeans. They have nothing that proves that they are in fact Assyrian; the only thing they have is references pertaining to Assyrian Nationalists, which many have been successfully refuted by Syriac and Western scholars. They do not seek to unite neither of the groups, they simply wish to push their own agenda so that they can claim benefits from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Without Syriacs or Chaldeans on their side, they are unable to achieve any of their goals. They are not going anywhere in politics, the only threat they oppose is here on Wikipedia where they can misconstrued history. The joke is on them however because no scholar or researcher uses Wikipedia as a reference. They are a joke in Iraq and many of them ran during the seventies because their citizenship were stripped for being Iranians, which they truly are. Neither Syriacs or Chaldeans faced that issue in Iraq during the seventies. Many Assyrians speak funny Aramaic and Arabic. Their Aramaic does not sound like Syriac or Chaldean Aramaic; it sounds much like Persian than anything. They are not from Iraq as they have you believe, most of them come from Iran, but because of the Sykes-Picot Agreement many of them immigrated from Iran. They were considered as "ajam" in Iraq. The Massacre of Simele of 1933, was due to their fake Assyrian nationalism. The Syriacs and Chaldeans saved them from ethnic cleansing and this is how they repay them. They are much related to Kurds more than anyone in Iraq, this is apparent through their common mannerisms and nationalism, as well as their language, accent, and looks. Assyrians, please continue to disgrace yourselves, please, the more the merrier. The truth hurts. I feel sorry for your children because they are fed this fake idea of Assyrianization. Many of them will not know that they in fact are Kurds, Persians, or Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseofCourse (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC) --CommonSenseofCourse (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

POV

"Chaldeans are in fact ethnically Assyrian...", let's keep POV like these out of the article, there are no reliable sources saying that. The TriZ (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Chaldeans believe that they are descendants of Chaldea. Assyrians contend that they are in fact ethnically Assyrian." This statement is incorrect, there are heaps of Chaldeans that say they are ethnically Assyrian and that Chaldean is just a term that means a member of the Chaldean catholic church which separated from the Assyrian church of the east, infact some of them i have met have even told me how they're great grandparents converted from the A.C.O.E and became Chaldean, but identify with the Assyrian ethnicity. Aturaya (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

additional soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Chaldean is only a denominational and theological term that arose in the 17th century. That is pretty much a fact. The Chaldean Catholics come from the north of Mesopotamia (which was Assyria) and not the far south east, where the Chaldeans were from. Raphael Bidawid himself clearly distinguishes between Assyrian as the ethnic identity of Chaldeans and Chaldean Catholic as a theological designation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC) The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations

The present quote about Mar Bedawid is incorrect. His quote is erased and replaced with one that does not exist yet the correct is still wrongfully cited.

Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity and holding the belief that Chaldean is just his religious denomination. In an interview with Bidawid, published in 2003, he commented on the Assyrian name dispute and declared his ethnic point of view:

“I personally think that these different names serve to add confusion. The original name of our Church was the ‘Church of the East’ ... When a portion of the Church of the East became Catholic, the name given was ‘Chaldean’ based on the Magi kings who came from the land of the Chaldean, to Bethlehem. The name ‘Chaldean’ does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian.”

In an interview with the Assyrian Star in the September-October 1974 issue, he was quoted as saying:

“Before I became a priest I was an Assyrian, before I became a bishop I was an Assyrian, I am an Assyrian today, tomorrow, forever, and I am proud of it.”

Chaldeans call themselves Sūrāyā (Syrian) in singular and Sūrāyē in plural

NOT: "Some religious officials within the Chaldean Church, such as Patriarch Mar Raphael I Bedawid, advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What is clearly is that you and your other account is writing the same thing twice, I don't know if it is that you want to "show" that you are not the same person or something, however you fail with that, miserable. To the actual point, it says some religious officials. The TriZ (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And where does it say the Bishop held belief in the a Chaldean ethnicity? And no, two accounts, two different people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am6212 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Mm, yeah right. However, sure the sentence could be rewritten or just simply leave out Patriarch Mar Raphaels name. The TriZ (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Most of the first paragraph discusses ethnicity and that is the quote about ethnicity from the head of the Chaldean Church. Why leave it out? What are you afraid of? Why do you choose to leave in an altered and fabricated quote?

Off-topic, sign your messages with four tildes and do not delete my discussionposts again [5]. On-topic, there si an article that discusses the terms, it is called Names of Syriac Christians, wheter or not Chaldean is an ethnicity or not, can not be decided by you or the Patriarch. If some people identifies as Chaldeans, then their ethnicity is Chaldean, you should read more about ethnicity. There is no need for POV in articles, articles needs to be balanced and trying to be objective (though it is not possible for an article to be completely objective). This article is about Chaldean Christians (though the name should be Chaldean people), the article is not about proving that Chaldeans are Assyrians. The TriZ (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not attempt to answer questions that are not directed at you. Only speak when spoken to. This discussion is not about proving an ethnicity. It is simply about providing the correct references in the first paragraph and removing faricated quotes and citations which give the impression that they came from a real source.--Am6212 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I suggest you start speaking like a normal civil person. The TriZ (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start behaving like one. And again, This discussion is not about proving an ethnicity. It is simply about providing the correct references in the first paragraph and removing faricated quotes and citations which give the impression that they came from a real source. --Am6212 (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can something be done about the 23 footnote references for the opening sentence?
- if 23 sources are being cited in support of the one statement... well, surely 1, 2 or 3 good sources is enough, but in any case these should be amalgamated into one footnote: you don't need a different footnote for each source, different footnotes are for different elements in the text that are being supported.
- if different elements of the sentence are being supported, the footnote should be inserted next to the fact in question, not bunched together so it is not clear what is being supported.
- some of the footnotes could be deleted altogether, one is to the entry on the Assyrian people which is already linked in the sentence, the relevance of others isn't clear even when the actual source material is quoted in the note. The list almost reads more like a bibliography than a reference.
I know nothing at all about this subject area, only about referencing style. It would be preferable if someone with some knowledge could tidy this, because it does no credit at all to the credibility of this entry.Vgris (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Quote

"advocate the Assyrian ethnicity while still holding belief in the Chaldean ethnicity also"...yet the citation says "The name ‘Chaldean’ does not represent an ethnicity... We have to separate what is ethnicity and what is religion... I myself, my sect is Chaldean, but ethnically, I am Assyrian." Clearly not advocating two ethnicities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippss (talk • contribs) 21:33, 7 October 2008 in the strictest definitions of ethnicity chaldeans indeed are to be considered a seperate ethnic group> they have a distinct language< distinct customs< and they even have something of a distinct dna makeup due to generations of marriage only with in their own group> if you look up the definition of ethnicity< you will see that chaldeans certainly may lay claim on their own ethnical identity> connie khoshi> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellybutonlint (talk • contribs) 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct that Chaldeans can claim their own etnical identity, but Assyrian fanatics have layn control over this article and doesn't let anyone else edit it. The TriZ (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and you have sabotaged everything with your aramaenist fanatic propganda bullshit everywhere, good job you hypocrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.92.37 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

additional soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The modern Chaldean Catholics ARE in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Regions with Significant Populations

This box mentions Syria, but Syria is mentioned nowhere else on the page. Meanwhile, the text mentions Turkey, which does not appear in this box. I have no idea which is correct, but this seems inconsistent.

Syria is the second most populated Chaldean Catholic nation in the middle east now due to the large influx of Iraqi Chaldeans into that country. Turkey is historical - their used to be a big population their, but not anymore. But I guess it should be included since they still have Chaldean Catholic churches up and running with small communities here and their. Iraqi (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits contradicting sources?

Regarding this edit by Chaldean2: one of the changes is to state that Chaldeans are not a subset of the Assyrians. However, the cited source claims that they are. Do we have a replacement source that says they aren't? —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some observations on the sentence "The Chaldean Christians are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church and are a subset of the Assyrian people" I've modified . 1) the term "subset" is not found in any refs. 2) it is not logical to say that members of a denomination (religious body) are a "subset" of a ethnically gruop (Assyrians): these are two different levels, and actually the refs don't mix them 3) to use the term "subset" to define a religious group against its will is denigratory and Wiki shall not use it 4) Please note the the Chaldean Catholic Church does NOT require the Assyrian ethnicity to be member: there are many famous Chaldeans Christians not Assyrians, like for example Mons Drapier [6] borne Latin Catholic in France and entered in the Chaldean Catholic Church where he was ordained bishop in 1929 (I can find many other examples).

so I suggest: or A) the prevalent ethnicity of the members of a certain denomination (the Chaldean Catholic Church) is Assyrian (on a ethnicity level), or B) that the Chaldean Catholics is a subset of the faithfuls of the ancient Church of the East (on a religions level) A ntv (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that 130.17.92.63 has reverted my edit. I agree that "the name Assyrian refers to an ethnic identity, the name Chaldean refers to the (Catholic) rite" (no doubt about it in the refs), but the sentence "The Chaldean Christians are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church and are a subset of the Assyrian people" is not clear: it looks like that all members of the Chaldean Catholic Church shall be Assyrian, that is not, and it looks like that all members of the Chaldean Catholic Church are a subset of something, that is denigratory. Moreover the terms "Chaldean Christians" is used also to generally indicate the members of the Chaldean Catholic Church. So I suggest a more clear text that anyway preserves the idea that "the name Assyrian refers to an ethnic identity, the name Chaldean refers to the (Catholic) rite", i.e. "The term Chaldean Christians, may sometime indicate the part of the Assyrian people that are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church and may sometime generally indicate the members of the Chaldean Catholic Church even if not necessarily Assyrian" A ntv (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, there has been members of the Chaldean Church who are not ethnically assyrian however I can argue the same with the Assyrian Church of the East; I know many members who are non-assyrian but attend the church, shall we then say that it is not Assyrian since the ethnical makeup of the church is roughly 90% assyrian. You are right when you say that it is not a requirement to be assyrian to attend the church, when the article said subset, it was generally refering to the vast majority of the memnbers and not the 2 or 3 % you mentioned. I see you're acting in good faith and I thank you for that but let me say respectfully that The first sentence as it is now makes no sense grammatically. Instead of using'subset' let us find another word that is not Denigratory as you put it. Let us replace the word subset if you feel it necessary, but keep it simple for easy reading. After reading the first sentence I must say I am very confused on what point you're trying to make. I have provided 25 academic sources to back the original claim up, I think it is best to invite established users who are apart of the church to get more feedback. I recommend User: Gabr-el he would be more qualified to find a more appropriate term. Best regards Ninevite (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have invited a user who belongs to the church, hopefully he can make it soon to comment on your concerns. Ninevite (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we are agreeing on the content. Be free to find a better wording than mine. Take note that "subset" means that the 100% of the members of the subset are member of the larger set, that is not our case. A ntv (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this suggestion, let us bring it back to what it was before and remove the word 'subset' and replace it with the [vast] majority of chaldeans belong to the assyrian people. This will likely clear things up as it will indciate that not all chaldeans are in fact assyrian but the majority is ethnically whereas historically there have been chaldean catholics [people of differnt origin] who have not been assyrian as in the case you have showed above. I cannot think of a better solution. I would appreciate your input on this. Ninevite (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Ninevite's proposition. Gabr-el 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with this solution. If you like you can also reduce the number of refs, possibly removing the not-third-party refs as "Assyrian Identity in Ancient Times and Today" A ntv (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How does this sound?

• The Chaldean Christians (Chaldo-Assyrians, Assyro-Chaldeans; Neo-Aramaic: ܟܠܕܝܐ Keldaya, Suraya), are adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church. With exception to few historical religious figures the vast majority of the members belong to the Assyrian people.
• I will remove the sources you mentioned, if there any others let me know. Ninevite (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldnt this page, as the other ethnic Assyrian pages be redirected to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people?--Yohanun (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No thank you. we will keep our own page on here. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

we are Arameans (cardinal Mar Emmanuel Delly)

...but I would like to state that we, the Chaldean, Assyrian and Syrian people are one people known as Aramean people.

Let Iraq continue to live with all its ethnic groups, Arabs, Kurds, Arameans, Yazidie' s, Mandeans, and Shabak.

cardinal Mar Emmanuel Delly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.33.210 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes

I've made some edits to this page to remove some of the accumulated Assyrianist pov, so that it represents Chaldean people. I've left simple edit summaries for most edits to explain them. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As Tisqupnaia2010 said, this is an article about a church denomination [or the members of it] and not ethnicity. You're going against the agreements of Talk:Assyrian people. Before you make such edit, discuss here or even better, in Talk:Assyrian people (where such things have been discussed before). Shmayo (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

additional soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Chaldean and Assyrian nationalists

First, please understand that this article is about church denominations and not ethnicity. You can move your warring to another article. Second, the facts that we both agree on are as follow:
The Church of the East split. Two denominations emerged: the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Chaldean Catholic Church united with Rome. The Assyrian Church of the East did not. If you (on either side) do not agree with this, please read some of our history. Some really good sources are mentioned in this articles. I have edited the page to reflect our common beliefs. I have removed any comparison between the two groups in numbers and status. No one is a subgroup of the other, and no one is better than the other. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Chaldean Catholics (members of the Chaldean Catholic Church) and the Nestorians (members of the Assyrian Church of the East) are subgroups of the Assyrian people. This is agreed in Talk:Assyrian people. The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people is commonly known as the Assyrian people, this is why the article is called so (please read WP:common name). Please read more in Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_9. And I suggest if you don't agree what's written there, open a discussion there. Shmayo (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tisqupnaia2010's comments appear to be far more NPOV than Shmayo's. Shmayo's edits appear to be more POV and anti-Chaldean. If you have things to add to this article, Shmayo, then discuss it here first and get consensus before adding. You have been reverted by multiple editors here. That should tell you that your edits are not appropriate without getting consensus first. (Taivo (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo, if you have not read all discussions about this, then please stop calling my edits POV. As I said, it have been disscussed in Talk:Assyrian people, please read (see archive). I'm not the one adding POV, I reverted edits that is going against what's been discussed. And the only ones that reverted my edits, except you, are two nationalist Chaldeans. Shmayo (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think you're right, Shmayo, then it should be easy to build a consensus here before continuing to disrupt this article. (Taivo (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm not the one removing sourced material and going against what's been discussed. Again, please read Talk:Assyrian people. Shmayo (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because material is "sourced" doesn't mean that the sources are appropriate, that your use of the sources is appropriate, that the sources are not fringe, etc. I can find "sources" that justify any position whatsoever on any topic. Don't add material to an article when other editors have objected to it without a discussion and consensus here first. If you think that this is a wider problem in Wikipedia as a whole, then open an arbitration action and get a Wikipedia policy put in place. You have options within the Wikipedia dispute resolution framework besides the edit warring that you are conducting here. (Taivo (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

For example, see WP:MOSMAC2, the result of an arbitration action. (Taivo (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

I agree with Tisqupnaia2010's message: 1) here we are speaking of religious denominations not of ethnicity 2) Wiki shall be NPOV and not take a stand on which denomination is the true successor of the Church of East, but simply list all claims. A ntv (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, didn't really add material, I reverted a controversial edit which was done without discussion here. Problem about this topic have been discussed in the talk page of the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (with the common name Assyrian people). User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is going against the consensus reached in Talk:Assyrian people, and his is not even discussing. Cred to Tisqupnaia2010 who is actually trying to discuss (but has clearly not read Talk:Assyrian people). User:ܥܝܪܐܩ is not discussing and going against consensus in several articles. Shmayo (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

A ntv, what do you mean by "...which denomination is the true successor of the Church of East"? After schism one group of the church entered into communion with the Holy See and was called the Chaldean Catholic Church, and the rest followed the patriarch and was still called Nestorians. I've never heard of any dispute about who is "the true successor of the Church of East". But the split is bad discribed in this article. Shmayo (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To Mr. Shmayo.You seem to be changing any article that has the word "Chaldean" in it. You keep on refering to Talk: Assyrian People ,forgetting that this is about Chaldeans. Your version of this article has two problems: First, your sources that you presented are all non-academic. They are writings done by other Assyrian nationalists. This makes the article far from neutral. Second, you keep on identifying Chaldeans as being a subgroup of Assyrians, which is historically wrong. I tried to further myself from this kind of discussion, but i guess there is noway to avoid it. Historically, there is no such ethnicity as the nowadays Assyrians. The currently named Assyrians are not related to the Ancient Assyrians. Current Assyrians were named after the church of the east split. Before the Church of the East split, the people in that region were called East Syrians. I don't know what you have been reading, but I am sure it is not related to history. Reading and referring to articles written by other Assyrian nationalists will never be considered reliable by anyone, not even 6th grade kids. History is not a subject to mess with. By exercising a sort of Assyrian Fascism, you will not change history.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To Mr. Shmayo I am glad that you have finally understood that "there is no true successor to the Church of the East. As for the split, perhaps you can tell us how it is "badly described". I have read it 10 times and I still don't see how you consider it bad. Nevertheless, perhaps you can state here what kind of change will keep the true information, be neutral, and will not badly describe the split. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you really do not understand what the "Assyrian people"-article is. The article, formerly called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people, is a article about the ethnic people belonging to the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church (and a couple of smaller churches). Now I've already explained why it's called "Assyrian people". After discussion and voting it was changed to "Assyrian people" because in Wikipedia you follow the common name. "your sources that you presented are all non-academic. They are writings done by other Assyrian nationalists." Do you mean the sources in the old version of the article? Then look at those sources again. The history part will I be answering in the Tel Skuf talk page. Shmayo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The old version described it very good. I can't see why you changed it. Shmayo (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Now again, if you don't like how the name Chaldean is used, discuss in the talk page of Assyrian people. Shmayo (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

You should understand that this page is about Chaldeans. It is NOT about Assyrians. The two are of different denominations and of different ethnicity. You and other Assyrian nationalists are practicing Assyrian Fascism to promote a single ethnicity over the rest of us. This is exactly the same method that Saddam Hussein used to oppress all the minorities of Iraq to make them Arabs. I don't think Wikipedia would want to be part of your Assyrian Fascism, and I'll make sure they will understand your fascist views. What you have said and mentioned in Assyrian people is something out of this topic. We don't care about what Assyrians think of Chaldeans. Your fascism is more than clear to every educated person. The Congress of The United States of America itself recognizes us as ethnically different. I don't think you can do better research than THE CONGRESS OF THE USA. Moreover, none of the Chaldean people identifies himself as Assyrian. I just can't understand why you are having these Assyrian Fascist views? --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the conversation here somewhat civil. I don't think that Shmayo is "fascist", but you are correct that this article is about Chaldeans and not Assyrians. It is an article about religion and the adherents of a religion, not about an ethnic group. Chaldeans are not Assyrians in their religious confession. That's enough for this article. The ethnic and linguistic distinction of the Chaldeans is for other articles, not here. So the Assyrian ethnic POV really isn't relevant to this article. (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo: Believe me, I have tried to keep it neutral. I just got frustrated by the attempts of Assyrian Nationalists attacking any article that has the word "Chaldean" in it. I hope that Mr. Shmayo will at least try to stay away from posting additions that inflame warring. I am totally against warring, and I would rather not see my people engaged in it. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 02:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the emotions that rise up when ethnic, religious, and nationalistic differences are on the line, when one group is trying to force their opinion on another. (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

"You should understand that this page is about Chaldeans. It is NOT about Assyrians. The two are of different denominations and of different ethnicity." Now that is going against the consensus reached on Wikipedia. I'm going to revert, and I've right to do so because it have been discussed several of times and consensus have been reached, but you don't seem to care about that. And you should look up things before you talk, we are referred to as Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs in US census. Taivo, you must understand that consensus have been reached! Please, please read Talk:Assyrian people. Nobody have right to just make big edits going against consensus, like saying Chaldeans and Assyrians are ethnically distinct from each other. Shmayo (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Moreover, none of the Chaldean people identifies himself as Assyrian." This is also a false statement. See User:Chaldean, and there are many, many other. In fact, the Assyrian Democratic Movement won in many villages in Iraq that are mostly Chaldean Catholic.(that is only of the Chaldean Catholic villages where ADM won) Shmayo (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep claiming that there's a consensus at Talk:Assyrian people, but I see no such thing. You also fail to address the basic issue that this article isn't about ethnicities, but about a religious community. Start an Arbitration action if you disagree. You still stand alone against three editors who have reverted you and a fourth who has commented on this page. (Taivo (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

"...this article isn't about ethnicities, but about a religious community." Exactly, this article almost look like an ethnic page now. Taivo, please see the archive. You'll see that it's añ ethnic article for the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people (named Assyrian people which is common name). No, Taivo, these nationalist Chaldean edits have been reverted by other people. Not only me, but User:Chaldean, User:Assyria 90 and User:Nineveh 209 are some that have reverted these kind of edits. Shmayo (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an ethnicity article and I see nothing in the article that would make me think it was anything other than an article about a religious community. You say "reverting these kinds of edits", but these names do not appear in the history of this article. This article is not about an ethnic group, but about a religious community. You need to stop confusing the two. (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Let me clarify for you, Shmayo. "Ethnicity" is in the DNA and you are probably right that the various communities of Neo-Aramaic speakers are similar ethnically. I'm not going to touch that. "Religious community" is not in the DNA, but is behavioral. A group could be ethnically diverse, but unified as a religious community. This article only covers the religious community that share a single confession. This article doesn't touch the issue of ethnicity, only the confessional distinctiveness of this community. Keep the ethnic comments and arguments based on ethnicity out of it. (Taivo (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

For example, it said "Kaldayee Mshekhaye" (Chaldean Christians), now it's only "Kaldayee" (Chaldeans). Yes, this is a religious community belonging to the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Not once, not even in the "see also"-section there is a link to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. It's the same people, but eveything said about them being one of the three religious communities of this people have been removed. Much culture about Chaldean Catholics is written in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people-article, but not a single link to that article. And as said, "Christian" have been removed on some placed only showing "Chaldean" as if they were a distinct ethnic group, and not only a religious community. Taivo, it's not just about this article, look for example on articles of some villages where Chaldean Catholics live, see articles of Tel Skuf, Alqosh and some other and you will find these name, maybe some other too. Shmayo (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I now what this article is about, but if there isn't a link to the other article it's a joke, plenty about Chaldean Catholics is written there. And see articles of other religious communities, isn't it said which ethnic group they are belonging to? Yes, it does. And this isn't just about this article, Taivo, read my last sentence above. Shmayo (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that a link is appropriate, then add an appropriate link. But don't add all that Assyrian argumentation. If people are interested, they will follow the link, but this article is only about the Chaldean Christian church community, not about the Assyrian Christian community or the Syriac Christian community or the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac ethnic groups. And in common English usage, once a community has been cited in a full name ("Chaldean Church", "Chaldean Christians", etc.) then later in the article it is perfectly acceptable usage to just write "Chaldean" without all the added words. Readers are perfectly comfortable with that usage. (See WP:MOSMAC2 for an arbitrated example of this.) (Taivo (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

You might also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Unless there is a Wiki-wide written policy like WP:MOSMAC2, then just because one article does X doesn't mean that another article must also do X. Consensus in one place doesn't always equate to consensus everywhere. Consensus is also a delicate thing that can change over time depending on the editors currently involved in an issue. (Taivo (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

But things about Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs have been discussed in the talk page of the ethnic people, and not just about that article, but for example about the old article "Syriac people", where consensus was reached, but yes, I understand what you mean. But some other things on this article should be checked, like the one about the church split, which was much better before. Shmayo (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed the link to that article and replaced the sentence about the split which was more correct and more understandable. I also changed the Syriac script so it says Chaldean Christians. Shmayo (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

...which is now reverted by User:ܥܝܪܐܩ, the only one that's not discussing. He've added most material but don't discuss, same thing when he's reverting. Shmayo (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw. I replaced your label and link, but the wording of "Syriac squiggle" is more informative I think. (Taivo (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

If the link Syriac Christians goes to Assyrian people, then it should be deleted. The link labelled "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" should be relabelled "Assyrian people" to reflect the actual title of the article. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I reworded the first sentence to make it more grammatical English and to clarify. (Taivo (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo has been a very helpful editor throughout, helping to ensure a npov, and I think his balanced input is deserving of precedence. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the ethnicity be written in the begining? I don't want to start the discussion about the ethnicity again, but in the begining of articles about religious groups ethnicity is allways written (like in the articles about Nasrani, Yezidi...), isn't that right? Shmayo (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Did the Church of the East split? Wasn't it one group that didn't follow the patriarch and united with the Holy See? And the other one just kept following the patriarch and really never became a new church? Because it didn't change name to Assyrian Church of the East then, this was much later. And as the Church of the East was called, the church of today is also called Nestorian Church, and the followers Nestorians (even if the patriarch of today don't like that name). Myself I don't belong to any of these churches, but this is what I've understood. The church renamed itself to Assyrian Church of the East later, it was called Church of the East after the split too, isn't that right? It was more like one group left, not a real split? Shmayo (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A split is a split whether it's by mutual consent or by one group leaving. It's still a split. About the name. When did the Church of the East become Assyrian Catholic Church in name? (Taivo (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure, but what I've heard it was when the patriarch of today became patriarch (1976?). I just meant that the old version is explaining the split in a better way. The same with the Syriac Catholic Church. The Syriac Orthodox Church was still the Syriac Orthodox Church even after a group created the Syriac Catholic Church and united with Rome instead. Please read my other post above too Shmayo (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think the Chaldean flag belongs in this article, it is used by all Chaldean organizations, please have a look at these links:

• Chaldean Flag Day: May 17th

"The Chaldean Flag serves to express the Chaldean identity and heritage. After long and purposeful discussions relevant to the Chaldean cultural identity the internationally celebrated Chaldean artist Amer Hanna Fatuhi in Beth Nahrain-Iraq was commissioned to create a community flag. After a number of proposed submissions the flag was approved by leading Chaldean community organizations. Groups like the Chaldean Cultural Center, the Chaldean Union Democratic Party, Chaldean National Congress, and Chaldean Democratic Forum, along with other Chaldean cultural, educational, and social Organizations voted unanimously. The flag has since been registered by international bodies and the United State of America on Oct. 27, 1997."

• chaldeanflag.com ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These are all cultural/ethnic organizations and functions. Unless the flag specifically refers to the Chaldean Catholic Church or is specifically endorsed and used by the Chaldean Catholic Church, then it's not appropriate for this article. I would be very appropriate in the Assyrian people article, since that article covers Chaldeans in an ethnic/cultural sense. (Taivo (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

I have no problem with the changes made by Mr. Taivo. Unlike Assyrian nationalists, Chaldeans don't believe in forging history. The Church of the East was later named Assyrian Church of the East; however, this doesn't make the Chaldean Catholic Church part of the Assyrian Church of the East as Assyrian Nationalists make it seem. As for the Chaldean Flag, we have tried to make this article neutral. As long as the article of Assyrian Christans doesn't have the Assyrian Flag, we should not add the Chaldean Flag to this article. However, I invite Mr. Taivo to search for Assyrian Christians in Wikipeida. You'll be redirected to another page that is misleading to the subject. In that page, you'll emmidiatly notice the discrimination against Chaldeans. If you read their first link provided about the Assyro-Chaldean rite (the book is on google books), You see that it is also knows as Chaldean-rite; however, they haven't mentioned that in their article. They have only mentioned it to be know as Assyrian-rite!!!!! It should be corrected, don't you think? --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with the Assyrian Church here, only the Chaldean Church. The Assyrian Church needs to be dealt with on that Talk Page, not here. (Taivo (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC))

additional soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The modern Chaldean Catholics are in actuality Assyrians indigenous to Northern Mesopotamia. They were never referred to by themselves or their neighbours as Chaldeans before 1683 AD. They were originally members of the Assyrian Church of the East before splitting from it and entering communion with the Roman Catholic Church in 1553 AD. Rome significantly named this new church as The Church of Athura (Assyria) and Mosul, and only in 1683 AD was this changed to Chaldean Catholic Church. The Chaldean Catholics had always previously been referred to by themselves and others as Assyrians, Assouri, Ashuriyun, Syriac, Syrian, Athurai, Atorayeh or Nestorians before this. The term is purely Denominational, and not ethnic, as the Patriarch Mar Raphael Bidawid himself points out. There are no accredited academic studies whatsoever, nor written historical records extant, which link the Assyrian converts to Catholicism with the ethnic Chaldeans. Conversely there ARE historical records and serious academic studies which points to them being Assyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.105 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Liturgy and Liturgical Language

By "liturgy", I'm assuming that you mean the scriptures and ceremonial language of the church services. I'm assuming that you mean "Syriac" in this sense--the language of the Middle Ages and the language of the Peshitta. By "liturgical language", I'm assuming that you mean the language that sermons are given in and hymns are sung in. I'm assuming that you mean the modern-day language of the Chaldeans--Chaldean Neo-Aramaic. (Taivo (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

I am sorry. I missed that one after deleting the sentence. I am all for naming the language by the written form, Syriac. Thanks for correcting my mistake.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Article Titled Assyrian People

I have just seen that Mr. Shmayo suggested something about including a link to the name Chaldean/Assyrian/Syriac (The name shouldn't have Assyrians at the beginning of the suggested common name if you want to be consistent with the suggested Arabic name that your fellow Assyrian Nationalists are using to fool the ethnic Chaldeans). Nevertheless, if you had good intentions, you would've renamed Assyrian People article to represent the common name. If the name of your article is "Assyrian People", how do you expect us to believe its neutrality? It is like making an article about Mother Teresa and naming it Nazism. Does that make any sense? --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The name of that article needs to be discussed there, not here. (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Taivo, To keep a neutral article, there shouldn't be a link to an article where neutrality is disputed. Until that article is made neutral, this one should stay away from linking it.--Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, Tisqupnaia. Links within Wikipedia are there and not really subject to the "reliability" of the other article. The hope is that the other article is well-written, but it doesn't preclude appropriate links even when the other article isn't as good as it could be. We leave it to the readers to decide whether the other article is useful or not. We do not make value judgments on the links here. (Taivo (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC))

Ethnicity

There is something wrong in this article, not all Christians are Assyrian. Have many assyrians but not all are, some are Arab christians. They may be in religion but not necessarily in the ethnicity.My family are from the city of Mosul, go to Chaldean Church to attend but are not Assyrian ethnicity. There are many ethnic Arabs who are Christian or no religion. Therefore it is necessary to make this correction, for example my family can trace our background the various Christian tribes who came from Arabia (taghlib, Manathera and others). I am in fact an Arab who is Christian.Generally Christians living in cities for many years and do not speak Aramaic are the Arabs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.120.247.2 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you cease to speak your mother tongue that doesn't make you shift your ethnicity. Many Chaldeans/Assyrians do not speak Syriac but that doesn't make them something else. Just like an Irishman who lives in the US is still ethnically Irish. Your claim that you can trace your family back to pre-islamic Arab tribes is very intriguing. So is your family from Jbur? Albu Hamad? Taghleb? I guess you were probably an Assyrian who became Arabized by living in a major Arab city. Rafy talk 07:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)